• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jury Duty

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jury Duty; Awesome, or a violation of freedom?

  • Awesome.

  • I'm not a red!


Results are only viewable after voting.
Some people prefer semi-slavery dusted with a bit of democracy compared to living in fear of gangs with the biggest guns and pretty much being told what to do by brute force.

You ARE living under fear of the biggest gang with the biggest guns and pretty much being told what to do by brute force.

The state has simply created the illusion that it is the source of order. But it's only the source of orderly slavery, not of the order of spontaneous markets based on mutual gain.

I am against all exploitation. That includes exploitation by private parties. But if you have enough people who oppose all exploitation (public and private / legalized and not), then it has no chance in society. But what you just explained is that you give moral sanction to democracy and therefore for to legally plunder others. Yes, that is a law, but all it does is show that this kind of law has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Your right to keep your property and your freedom is independent and outside of the state. If you like to have a protection agency, then that's perfectly fine. This protection agency must abide by the same universal law as everybody else though: you may only acquire your funds voluntarily.
 
Given that the people who are being forced to do these things didn't agree to it beforehand I would have to say a violation of freedom.

Forcing people to do things they didn't sign up for assumes that the one doing the forcing owns those people.

Now some may say that you choose to live on this piece of land called America and therefore you have to serve the state, but this doesn't establish the basis for the state's authority; it simply asserts it.

It is a part of our social contract. By being born in this country or becoming a citizen via naturalization, you become party to that contract. If you want to change that and create a new one, then you may have a point. Until then, it is perfectly in line with our core beliefs in freedom - in that it requires certain obligations to uphold.
 
Given that the people who are being forced to do these things didn't agree to it beforehand I would have to say a violation of freedom.

Forcing people to do things they didn't sign up for assumes that the one doing the forcing owns those people.

Now some may say that you choose to live on this piece of land called America and therefore you have to serve the state, but this doesn't establish the basis for the state's authority; it simply asserts it.

That's quite a crock of shit coming from someone in the Netherlands who isn't even an American citizen.

OUR freedoms under our system of government requires active involvement and participation in our democracy by our citizens. That includes participation in jury duty because our Constitution grants us the right to a trial by our peers, rather than being constrained only to trials under the jurisdiction of the king's magistrates.

You're not an American. You're from the Netherlands, and you have no particular responsibility for such participation in our society. On your own site, linked in your sig, you say:

Who’s behind V for Voluntary?

My name is Niels. I'm 29 and from The Netherlands. I discovered libertarianism in the summer of 2005 through a small internet radio station. Then in late 2005 I discovered Freedomain Radio and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Liberty has been on my mind every day since then.

Uninformed, detached loudmouths like you are one reason I can never take anyone who calls himself a "libertarian" seriously. 🙄
 
Last edited:
Uninformed, detached loudmouths like you are one reason I can never take anyone who calls himself a "libertarian" seriously. 🙄

Oh, that's good. Can I try? Ignorant, talking point parroting wall of texters are one reason I can never take anyone who calls himself a "progressive" seriously. 🙄

(Not you, just in general)
 
Given that the people who are being forced to do these things didn't agree to it beforehand I would have to say a violation of freedom.

Forcing people to do things they didn't sign up for assumes that the one doing the forcing owns those people.

Now some may say that you choose to live on this piece of land called America and therefore you have to serve the state, but this doesn't establish the basis for the state's authority; it simply asserts it.

Then how would you propose to satisfy the requirement for a jury of peers?
 
Then how would you propose to satisfy the requirement for a jury of peers?

Any requirement that states the usage of someone else's time/energy is an invalid requirement. A legal system that requires slave labor (jury duty) is inherently unjust to begin with.
 
Any requirement that states the usage of someone else's time/energy is an invalid requirement. A legal system that requires slave labor (jury duty) is inherently unjust to begin with.

Being part of society is a give and take relationship. It's not a state of nature where you do whatever the fuck you want.
 
Being part of society is a give and take relationship.

Slavery is too much of a take.

It's not a state of nature where you do whatever the fuck you want.

But that's precisely what the people with state privilege are doing, raping and pillaging foreign lands without a care in the world, and then back at home literally stealing trillions of dollars hand over fist. After all that, they have the *balls* to get people to work for $5 a day perpetuating the legal system that allows them to rob everyone blind. I assure you, it is not me 'doing whatever the fuck I want' you have to worry about.
 
They need to pay you however much you get paid at your real job for a day's worth of work, that's all. Not doing this completely skews the pool of people who will/not try to come up with an excuse to serve/not serve.
 
They need to pay you however much you get paid at your real job for a day's worth of work, that's all. Not doing this completely skews the pool of people who will/not try to come up with an excuse to serve/not serve.

Then someone else has to work to pay for your service, and I am pretty sure it isn't coming out of the judge's paycheck.
 
They need to pay you however much you get paid at your real job for a day's worth of work, that's all. Not doing this completely skews the pool of people who will/not try to come up with an excuse to serve/not serve.
Then someone else has to work to pay for your service, and I am pretty sure it isn't coming out of the judge's paycheck.

The benefit is that you have smarter people deliberating on the jury in court, which is the entire point of having the jury in the first place-- to ensure justice is served.
 
what about mandating that employers compensate non-salaried employees (assuming their work schedule overlaps with jury duty)?

This would be a huge burden on small business owners. It's already a big enough burden that the person isn't available to do work, and instead of a team of 3 engineers working on the project you've got a team of 2.
 
I think that it's a large burden on much of the population. It can probably be reformed.

The jury system is required in all criminal cases and civil cases in federal courts. States can technically do whatever they want for civil cases in their own state courts. There are many instances where there are no juries or right to jury is denied.
 
They need to pay you however much you get paid at your real job for a day's worth of work, that's all. Not doing this completely skews the pool of people who will/not try to come up with an excuse to serve/not serve.

...

The benefit is that you have smarter people deliberating on the jury in court, which is the entire point of having the jury in the first place-- to ensure justice is served.

You've never served on a jury, have you?

Anyways, what you will have with your plan is only the unemployed on juries.

If 9 jurors @ avg. $20/hr jobs, 8hrs per day, that is just shy of $1,500 in jury costs per day. No court can afford that, no cases would ever be brought for a trial unless it's a slam dunk victory for an outrageous sum of cash.

Not to mention jurors stalling just to earn more free pay. When I was on a jury, we stalled just to hit the time where the court provides us with free lunch for that day 😀
 
Given that the people who are being forced to do these things didn't agree to it beforehand I would have to say a violation of freedom.

Forcing people to do things they didn't sign up for assumes that the one doing the forcing owns those people.

Now some may say that you choose to live on this piece of land called America and therefore you have to serve the state, but this doesn't establish the basis for the state's authority; it simply asserts it.

It is a part of our social contract. By being born in this country or becoming a citizen via naturalization, you become party to that contract. If you want to change that and create a new one, then you may have a point. Until then, it is perfectly in line with our core beliefs in freedom - in that it requires certain obligations to uphold.

You're just asserting it; you're not giving a reason. I could just as well say that by being born on earth you owe me half of your income because of the social contract you automatically enter.
 
OUR freedoms under our system of government requires active involvement and participation in our democracy by our citizens. That includes participation in jury duty because our Constitution grants us the right to a trial by our peers, rather than being constrained only to trials under the jurisdiction of the king's magistrates.

That's a false dichotomy. There are other options besides monarchy and democracy. Just because you perceive a democracy to be better than a monarchy doesn't mean a democracy is justified.

You cannot have a right TO something. You can only have a right FROM something; the right from being harmed and the right from being stolen from. But you do not have the right to force others into your schemes. This includes your scheme of jury duty.
 
Then how would you propose to satisfy the requirement for a jury of peers?

Any requirement that states the usage of someone else's time/energy is an invalid requirement. A legal system that requires slave labor (jury duty) is inherently unjust to begin with.

Right.

The way to satisfy the requirement for a jury is rather simple and straightforward:

You like to create a contract with, say, a customer. So you write up a contract and both agree on an independent judge who will be hired for his service.

So judges actually respond to market demand so that people can engage in contracting.

This model can scale up to a society-wide system of competing dispute resolution organizations. No aggressive force required.
 
You're just asserting it; you're not giving a reason. I could just as well say that by being born on earth you owe me half of your income because of the social contract you automatically enter.

The reason is that it is simply impractical for the social contract to be rewritten for every birth. The reasons for the current jury duty system are well-rooted in both English, and later American common law, which is why I didn't get into the specifics.

My personal view is that the right to a trial by 'a jury of your peers' would be severely limited by going to a strictly voluntary system. Without the proper incentives (i.e. financial incentives), there would be a huge lack of certain societal elements in the jury pool, thus denying the accused this right.

If you do not want to have that responsibility, then the answer is simply as renouncing your citizenship and all the rights/privleges that go along with it.
 
That's a false dichotomy. There are other options besides monarchy and democracy. Just because you perceive a democracy to be better than a monarchy doesn't mean a democracy is justified.

You cannot have a right TO something. You can only have a right FROM something; the right from being harmed and the right from being stolen from. But you do not have the right to force others into your schemes. This includes your scheme of jury duty.

You're from Holland, and I suspect you need to practice English and study American government and history before you comment further.

Starting with your English, OUR Constitution grants us rights TO things. For example, we have the right TO equal protection under the law, the right TO freeeom of speech, the right TO vote and the right TO bear arms.

We also have freedoms FROM some things such as unwarranted searches of our persons and homes.

With these enumerated rights and freedoms we also have duties and obligations, including the duty, as mandated by law, to make ourselves available to serve on juries.

In other words, you're entitled to express your opinion, no matter how uninformed or misinformed you are, and we have the right to laugh at you if you keep blowing smoke instead of dealing with facts. 😎
 
Last edited:
I served on a jury once and it was a pathetic and boring experience. It was a law suit that depended on which expert witness (Liar) doctor you thought you should believe. I thought it was just another frivilous law suit and that is how we voted.
 
What You Need to Know about Jury Service
Importance, History, and Constitutional Foundations of Jury Service

Jury service is a direct means for citizens to participate in the judicial process. Jurors make decisions that have an impact on individuals' lives, property, and liberty.
The jury, as an institution, has a long and distinguished history. As early as the English Magna Carta (1215), it was hailed as the protector of individual rights and liberties.
In the U.S. Constitution the Sixth Amendment provides for impartial jury trials in criminal cases.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury indictment.
The Seventh Amendment provides for juries in certain civil cases.
Legal, Financial and Personal Concerns of Prospective Jurors

Society considers jury duty so important to running a democracy that the failure to report to the courthouse when summoned can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.
The law relating to federal jury service is 28 U.S.C. SS §§1861 et. seq.
Federal law prohibits employers from firing or taking adverse action against individuals for participating in jury service.
Federal law also provides a daily stipend for federal jurors and makes provisions for reimbursements for certain travel expenses.
Sign language interpreters are available to deaf and hearing-impaired potential jurors. Other auxiliary aides also are available.
In order to enhance jurors' comprehension of the issues during the trial, some courts permit jurors to take notes or submit written questions they would like the lawyers to ask witnesses.
Jurors must not discuss the case with anyone except fellow jurors throughout the trial process. After the trial, jurors are under no obligation to talk about their experience with others, including the media. Jurors also are not prohibited from talking about their jury experience. Each juror has a choice.
Reporting to the Right Courthouse: Federal and State Courts

There are two different court systems within the United States, the federal court system and the state court systems. In the federal system, there are 94 district (trial) courts, and 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals in regions across the country. In each state, there is one state court system that has courthouses in towns and cities throughout the state.
The federal court system hears cases based on the U.S. Constitution and statutes passed by Congress. The state court system hears cases based on state constitutions and statutes passed by state legislatures. The federal courts do not hear cases involving only state law.
What Kind of Jury: Grand Jury or Petit Jury?

There are two types of jury systems in the United States, the grand jury and the petit jury.
The grand jury consists of 23 citizens of which 16 must be present to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Grand jurors analyze the evidence presented by a government attorney and then decide, based on this evidence, whether to indict (charge) an individual with a crime. Twelve or more grand jurors must vote in favor of the indictment before it may be returned.
A petit jury is a body of six to 12 citizens, and alternate jurors, that hears a criminal or civil case and decides the facts of the case. Unless otherwise noted, the term jury refers to a petit jury.
From the Jury Pool to the Jury Box: Voir Dire

Not every person summoned to jury duty is selected to participate on a jury. During a process called voir dire, the trial judge and/or the lawyers for each side question potential jurors for bias.
Each side has a certain number of peremptory challenges and an unlimited number of challenges for cause. A peremptory challenge allows a lawyer to dismiss a potential juror for any reason. A challenge for cause allows a party to dismiss a potential juror for possible biases.
The Job of the Judge, The Job of the Jury

The judge and the jury have specific roles in a judicial proceeding. The judge determines the appropriate law that should be applied to the case and the jury finds the facts in the case.
At the end of the trial, the judge instructs the jury on the applicable law. While the jury must obey the judge's instructions as to the law, the jury alone is responsible for determining the facts of the case.
What Kind of Case: Criminal or Civil - What's the Difference?

There are two types of judicial proceedings in the federal courts, criminal and civil cases.
In a criminal trial, an individual is accused of committing an offense - a crime - against society as a whole. Criminal juries consist of 12 jurors and alternates and a unanimous decision must be reached before a defendant is found "guilty." The burden of proof is on the government and the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In a civil trial, litigants are seeking remedies for private wrongs that don't, necessarily, have a broader social impact. Civil juries must consist of at least six jurors and the verdict must be unanimous unless the parties stipulate otherwise. The standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," or "more true than not." Not all civil cases are heard by jurors; some are conducted before a judge.
Guilty pleas and plea negotiations reduce the need for juries in criminal cases, and settlement negotiations reduce the need for juries in civil cases. Negotiations and settlements are effective avenues the courts and the parties use to arrive at justice.
 
I'm 34, I've been called in for jury duty 3 times already. I know people in their 60s that have never been called once. Dunno how they pick people but whatever. I've never been selected for a jury though so I don't know how that goes from personal experience. Yeah, the pay sucks etc, but if it didn't everyone would be bitching about the amount of tax money spent. Each of the three times I've been called in, my employer at the time covered the difference in daily wage. Honestly though if you can't handle a few days for civic duty you're already ahead of the fail curve. Heck one time I was called we got a 2 hour lunch break and a free pass to the Milwaukee County Museum that's a block away from the courthouse.

The last time I was called I only had to phone in. Unfortunately the court house is about 10 miles north of me, my work is 30 miles south. I had to call in early in the morning, and then again at noon, to see if I had to show up. Being that I worked so far away I was just told to stay home in case I had to go for the afternoon session. I never ended up having to even go to the courthouse, so I basically got 2 days of free paid vacation.
 
Back
Top