The 6th Amendment gives people a right to a speedy and public trial to be heard by an impartial jury.
In todays society is this a wise decision? How many people are acquitted or convicted because of jury
bias? I have spoken to many people who have said they would vote "Not Guilty" simply because they
were inconvenienced.

My question, is it time to have professional jurors? Should jury duty be a job? With paid jurors, they could
be trained to hear cases. Scientific evidence is becoming more prevalent in trials, would you trust that any
person off the street would be able to understand the science? With paid jurors, racial, affluence or "I simply
don't want to be here," biases could be curtailed.

So, what do you think, should jururs be paid?

The 6th Amendment gives people a right to a speedy and public trial to be heard by an impartial jury.
In todays society is this a wise decision? How many people are acquitted or convicted because of jury
bias? I have spoken to many people who have said they would vote "Not Guilty" simply because they
were inconvenienced.

My question, is it time to have professional jurors? Should jury duty be a job? With paid jurors, they could
be trained to hear cases. Scientific evidence is becoming more prevalent in trials, would you trust that any
person off the street would be able to understand the science? With paid jurors, racial, affluence or "I simply
don't want to be here," biases could be curtailed.

So, what do you think, should jururs be paid?



Jurors should be paid more so that the time spent in a trial is actually worthwhile from a financial standpoint. As far as having professional jurors, I think it's a bad idea for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, possible lopsided conviction/aquittal rates depending on where their salaries come from, increased potential for jury tampering, no policing (who would be your "boss" if you were a pro-juror?), and the accused wouldn't have a jury of his peers.

As much as most people dislike jury duty, I can imagine few willing to sign up for such a job as a full-time deal. Also, if I understand correctly, in high profile cases jurors are not allowed access to any media, and have a lot of other unpleasant restirctions placed upon them. That sounds like a crappy job to me. 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

ABSOLUTELY NOT!


If you're opposing "full-time jurors", I agree.  We have 'em.  They're called "judges", and (insofar as the Constitution still applies) you usually have the right to choose between trial by judge or by a jury of your peers.

If you're opposing the concept of indexing jury pay for two centuries of inflation, I respectfully disagree.  Once upon a time, $10 a day was a hell of a lot of money.  Make it worth a juror's time, and you'll get a better jury pool.

Needless to say, smarter jurors are in the interest of neither the prosecuting attorney nor the defending attorney nor the State, so as long as I'm pipe-dreaming, I'd also like a pony.

Compensating jurors, yes.  Paying them, no.  I shall expand.  I would have no problem with the state reimbursing jurors for lost wages while empaneled (or for the time it takes hanging around at the courthouse.  I've waited hours on end only to be declined for the panel), but the job of juror itself is a civic duty.  Make money a motivating factor and you're asking for trouble.

Compensating jurors, yes.  Paying them, no.  I shall expand.  I would have no problem with the state reimbursing jurors for lost wages while empaneled (or for the time it takes hanging around at the courthouse.  I've waited hours on end only to be declined for the panel), but the job of juror itself is a civic duty.  Make money a motivating factor and you're asking for trouble.


OK, I can see some of your argument: if I were being paid $1000/day, I'd be sure to drag out deliberations as long as possible, too.

How about "lost wages plus 10%, or if unemployed, minimum wage plus 10%, whichever is higher" as a middle ground? 

To avoid the problem of waiting around the court only to be declined, count the waiting time as "paid time".  This would also discourage DAs from keeping people around only to last 30 seconds on the stand after having answered "Have you ever heard of an organization called FIJA".

/had to answer honestly in the affirmative.
//boom, instantly booted, would have been booted whether it was the DA or the defense attorney.
///they didn't even ask me if I agreed with FIJA's position.
////which says a lot, doesn't it.
/////more's the pity, everyone I've known who's served on a jury has not regretted it.  Wish I'd had the chance.

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
- Ed Howdershelt

Jury nullification is, (speaking strictly in my personal opinion, and an opinion not recently backed by the Supremes), a big part of what Howdershelt was referring to when he spoke of the third box.

So if you are called to serve on a jury does your company not carry on paying your salary?  I know that most companies here do.  When I did jury duty a couple of years ago I was paid travel expenses and had a meal allowance.

I think an emplyoyer has to pay some portion of your wage. I don't know if you would get the same wage as if you were working. But as Max said above, It's our civic duty to be a juror. And if one is paid.. or a 'professional' juror, then that's taking the blindfold off justice. That opens the door for jury tampering and corruption. I've always heard if you don't want to serve on a jury.. it's easy to get out of it.. you just answer the questions the lawyers are asking you and you say..." Hell ya, I want to be a juror.. Is it a murder case..? Let me be on a murder case. I'm a big fan of Forensic files and Court TV!" they'll excuse you in a minute if you seem too eager.  :D

The reason I posed this question is because of the outcome of a few trials. Without getting heavily into it,
in Philadelphia two men are charged with risking a catastrophe and negligent homicide. A pier collapsed
killing three girls. The men knew the pier was in danger of collapse and were told so by engineers. Ten
jurors wanted to convict, two held out resulting in a hung jury and a mistrial. The reason they held out,
the engineer's warning was given verbally, not in writing. People in this community believe that wealth
and the affluence of friends played a part in the jurors decision. Many also believe that celebrity status
played a roll in the outcome of Robert Blake and O.J Simpson's trial.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting mercenaries. I don't agree with a, "Jury for hire by trial."  What I
was alluding to was a salaried postion in the State Government. This could curtail tampering because trial
length would not matter. The Prosecuter and Defense team would already have a list of potential jurors,
that would eliminate the interviewing process.

Look, I know the theory is flawed but look around you. Would you want any those people in a jury if
you were the one accused. The sixth amendment gave us this right, nowhere in the amendment does
it say jury of peers, It does, however, say impartial jury. In today's society with media coverage and the
love of celebrity status an impartial jury is almost impossible. The sixth amendment was ratified 1791. With
the population of cities and surrounding communities, the lack of media coverage, and the nature of the
crimes this amendment served it's purpose for the time, but like other amendments of the Constitution,
it is out dated.

I served jury duty twice a long time ago. I can't remember exactly  how much I got for my time but I think it was only $6 a day or something like that. (The first time there ALL day-I think I was let go about 6 p.m. when the trial was over-the second time I was there for 3 days). Everyone usually groans when they received that summons but I think if they received a GOOD compensation for their time, it would make people more willing to do their civic duty. I'm not talking about a check that will put them in a higher tax bracket but a bit more than minimum wage would be nice.




Cat

To me it seems that the obvious solution is to make sure that those serving on the jury, or even those who are just waiting to serve, don't lose out because they're on jury duty.

If you make $100 a day.. then, you get $100 for your day of jury duty. If you get a $1000 a day, you get your $1000 a day. People are still going to try and get out of it because it's dull, but I doubt you would see as much in the way of hurrying things along.

Al Capone knew a thing or two about "paying jurors"!
;)

Heya Max.. have you met the newest Inthe00s member? Should check out his post under the new members thread..

To me it seems that the obvious solution is to make sure that those serving on the jury, or even those who are just waiting to serve, don't lose out because they're on jury duty.

If you make $100 a day.. then, you get $100 for your day of jury duty. If you get a $1000 a day, you get your $1000 a day. People are still going to try and get out of it because it's dull, but I doubt you would see as much in the way of hurrying things along.
It's a good idea in theory, but it would be a paperwork nightmare.  What about people who are strictly on commission or earn salary + commission?  Those who work flexible hours?  I used to work a "flex shift" where it didn't really matter what days/hours I worked as long as I a) did 40 hours and b) did them between 6 am & 10 pm M-Sat or 10-6 on Sunday. 

I think a straight minimum wage "salary" is the best option.  And, I also believe that even if you're not chosen for duty, but you show up for the interview or whatever it's called, you should be compensated for your time. 

It's a good idea in theory, but it would be a paperwork nightmare.  What about people who are strictly on commission or earn salary + commission?  Those who work flexible hours?  I used to work a "flex shift" where it didn't really matter what days/hours I worked as long as I a) did 40 hours and b) did them between 6 am & 10 pm M-Sat or 10-6 on Sunday. 

I think a straight minimum wage "salary" is the best option. And, I also believe that even if you're not chosen for duty, but you show up for the interview or whatever it's called, you should be compensated for your time. 



I could be wrong but I believe people are compensated. However, the average pay for jury duty is between $5-20 per day. Not enough in my book for you to sit there ALL DAY LONG!!! Each time I served, I wasn't even called until well after lunch-but I still had to be there at 8 a.m. It was a total waste of my time. At least once I was selected, I felt like I was a bit more productive-but I still feel that I was not compensated enough for my time.




Cat

I brought this thread back because I think the jury is at fault in the following story.

http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/mcdonalds-strip-search-victim-wins-suit/20071005163709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

The jury awards 6.1 million dollars for stupidity. The girl strips because of a phone call, how gullible. She sues McDonald's,
who had nothing to do with the situation, for 200 million claiming negligence. This case should have been thrown out
of court.

I believe in cases like this the jury sees the little guy going against a giant. McDonald's is not responsible for the girl's stupidity
but the jury figures a big corporation could stand a little humbling. A jury, whose job it is to be a juror, would see the case for
what it is and rule accordingly. A mail order jury has a "stick it to the man" mentality. This verdict is unjust and unfair, big business
or not, no one should pay for another's stupidity.

The 6th Amendment gives people a right to a speedy and public trial to be heard by an impartial jury.
In todays society is this a wise decision? How many people are acquitted or convicted because of jury
bias? I have spoken to many people who have said they would vote "Not Guilty" simply because they
were inconvenienced.

My question, is it time to have professional jurors? Should jury duty be a job? With paid jurors, they could
be trained to hear cases. Scientific evidence is becoming more prevalent in trials, would you trust that any
person off the street would be able to understand the science? With paid jurors, racial, affluence or "I simply
don't want to be here," biases could be curtailed.

So, what do you think, should jururs be paid?



I think we should have a jury of experts on whatever the topic of the case is.  There would be professional jurors who would be drawn from various industries, and they would be paid the same amount while on a jury that they normally do during their day job.

That way, the jury would already have a familiarity with the nature of the case, and they wouldn't have any motivation to speed through a case just to get back to work.

Paying jurors?  Snazzy idea.  Al Capone used to do that!
:P