what are the benefits and drawbacks to the current juror syster?
339079
I'll leave the benefits to everyone else.  \n\nMy problem with the drawbacks is the fact that depending on where you live, you are more likely to get a jury of your ignorant, white trash neighbors than a jury of your peers.  In my state, every jury I have seen sleeps through most of the trial, and I am sure has NO IDEA what the lawyer is talking about.  And regardless of the questionaires, etc., I refuse to believe that juries (again, atleast in my state) put their own prejudices and feeling aside when deciding on the case.\n\nDid I mention I live in the deep south?  I love where I live, but intelligence is few and far between, esp when it comes to jurors.
323386
I don't think there is a max age as long as there are no mental or medical problems that would hinder you sitting on a jury
47837
I think I'd give him/her more credit.  By refusing, they held strong to their beliefs, something I see as a sign of good character (even if those beliefs do not match up to my own).  Either way, as a juror, I'd try to be as objective as possible.
131733
You must respond for jury duty.  \n\nOnce there you will be among many others, how many depends on a number of factors such as where you live and the type of cases to be tried.\n\nFrom this “Panel” of potential jury members individuals will be selected  through a process of Voir Dire (meaning – to speak the truth).  This is the preliminary examination made of prospective jurors so that the court (attorney questioning) can ask questions of the prospective juror to find out as to things such as competency, interest, knowledge of the parties involved in the case, things like that, and, from these select those they most desire on the final jury.\n\nIt is likely that those in the initial jury panel will not all have to go through this process (most jurisdictions select by lot) and after the jury selecting is complete the remaining people will be excused.  \n\nThose selected will comprise the jury itself and the alternates.\n\nIf a individual has some reason that they cannot attend they can present those reasons to the court.  If these are legitimate reasons that person will be excuse.\n\nDon’t the mistake of just not showing up.  You can be arrested and brought to the court.\n\nServing on a jury is a citizen responsibility and should be entered into willing and with enthusiasm.  It is one way a citizen can participate in the governmental process.  It is the right of our citizens to serve on juries to both judge the facts of the case as well as judge the application of the law, a right we have had since 1215 and the Great Charter (Magna Carta).\n\nThis is a responsibility each citizen should take seriously and gladly.  Those who advise to prospective jurors ways to just not do it, are doing you and your community no favor.
434997
Interesting if you have nothing to do.  Otherwise it's a hassle. Companies will typically give you 2-5 paid leave days for jury duty.  If you are on jury for a 2 month trial, it could be real expensive for you.   \n\nPeople can get waived for jury duty if they prove it would be a financial hardship but it's not that easy to get (esp if you have a white-collar job).\n\nMost people try to get off by sounding bias when the lawyers and prosecutor interview the people in the jury pool.  Judges will scold you if your obvious about it.
65102
Don't. It is your civic duty. Some employers even pay you your regular pay while your gone. That means you could get a little mini paid vacation. Even if not you shouldn't try to get out of it.\n\nIf you have a legit. reason not to participate in jury duty, that reason alone should be enough to get you off. ex: If you know one of the parties personally. If that is the case you can not be a part of the jury because you would not be impartial.
44604
i dont really see any disadvantages . advantages however you can watch record and modify any shows that you want to. for example: you cant watch your favorite show, you can program your your computer (using the software that came with your hardware) to record your show and either watch it on your pc or burn it to dvd and watch it any time you wish.
552196
I believe it's a way of preventing someone from the jury pool from serving on a jury, without having to give a reason.  Other prospective jurors have to be excluded "for cause".  Court rules specify how many "peremptory" challenges each side gets; after they use them up, they have to have a reason for objecting to a prospective juror.
10001
It really depends on where you are and how many people in your local area are dodging their responsibilities as citizens to serve jury duty.\n\nNot very long ago this problem was covered in The Los Angeles Times. In Los Angeles, dodging jury duty is such a problem that judges are passing out fines and punishments frequently, (even to people who thought their medical problems would excuse them), and are not as relaxed in leniency in comparison to other cities.\n\nIncidentally, serving jury duty time is a very interesting thing. It makes an ordinary citizen a part of an important process of justice. There are many people who complain of a lack of justice. This is a small way they can contribute to justice being served.
743930
Don't believe we can have a trial w/o a judge.\nBut, can you ever pick an impartial jury when so many prospective jurors are in fear of death, or trying to hit the jackpot of eternal life?
725444
Most litigator attorneys prefer juries because they can be influenced by appeals to emotion, and by subtle argument.\n\nIn the USA jury trials are guaranteed by the Constitution. In England they exist in civil trials only for libel actions, and in criminal trials conviction may be by majority, not unanimous, vote in many or most cases.\n\nBut it is argued in Britain that many matters -- especially white collar crimes, and more specifically financial fraud cases -- are too complex for juries and numerous high profile British prosecutions have indeed collapsed. \n\nIn the USA that is not generally the case, and as you know there were convictions in the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Martha Stewart and hundreds of other prosecutions.\n\nThe whole point of juries was to bring local knowledge and local standards to bear in the resolution of cases. The role of the jury narrowed later to simple fact-finding based on arcane trial procedural rules. In the UK, which has no written constitution other than those rules imposed by EU and European Convention on Human Rights law, there was recently enacted a law that permits retrial of acquitted defendants in certain "serious" cases. (Double jeopardy exists in the USA too sometimes, but only when the second trial is by a different sovereign, usually by the federal government after a state court acquittal.)\n\nThere is a good deal of cynicism about juries: the OJ Simpson trial is an example. Juries rarely understand the concept of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and the number of wrongful convictions -- now proven by DNA, but even earlier researched and written about (in England) by Bob Woffinden -- is sad testimony to the fallibility of juries and the cynicism of prosecutors.\n\nIt goes back to the declaration of Justice Olliver Wendell Holmes to Learned Hand about his job not being to "do justice" but to play the game by the rules: http://snurl.com/learned
996726
That is affirmative the only days you are allowed to take off are the actual days that you report for the jury pool. You will stay in a room until you are called. Bring a good book to read.
280221
Hi,\nIf you mean what is there job then i can help. Juries in america and canada are chosen from a databank - usually a mailing list. They are asked to attend court and must do so. They are paid very little compensation, but it is a civic duty so, thats not a serious issue. Juries are charged with the duty of deciding ones fate after all the evidence is presented by the crown prosecutor/district attorney and defence lawyers. Juries have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. Also, juries, in Canada, are not allowed to speak about the experience whereas jurors in the US are allowed to discuss the case in length. Juries are often sequestered, which means they cannot have contact with the public or there families (during the case) as the judicial process must be impartial and free from outside influence. Juries can consist of 6,8, or 12 depending on the state, but in Canada juries are often 12 members and the decision must be unanimous and if not, its called a "hung jury". Additionally, juries are made of lay people from the community hence, jury of your peers. Also, there is such a term called "jury nullification, which means that the jury doesn't like the law and feel for the accused they will decide based on there opinion and not the law. For example, see R v. Morgentaler 1985 (Canadian case on abortion). I am sure there is more, but i cannot recall. Ciao from Canada.
86516
The pro is that he understands crime and can teach you to be safer.  The con is that if people know, it might hurt your company's credibility unless you have a good explanation, like they are a consultant to help you be more secure.
324630
I was once asked for jury duty but was not selected.\nI would love to sit on a jury, especially if it is an interesting case.\nIt is a good way to find out how our legal system works or doesn't work.\nHowever, would not relish sitting in court for months on end.\nIn Canada, an employer cannot deduct pay if you have been picked as a juror.
126882
That question is nearly impossible to answer for a number of reasons.  There may be things about you that make you a desirable juror or an undesireable juror.  And experiences differ so widely.\n\nI am an attorney in California and I am 37.  I have been summoned for to jury duty 4 times in state court, but I have never served on a jury.  I've never been summoned for federal court.  My wife is 38.  She has been summoned once for state and once for federal court.  She served on jury in a rape case.\n\nMy dad is 60 and he's served on one jury.  My mom is 58 and never served on a jury.  My sister is 36 and has never been summoned for jury duty.  Who knows how to explain such a wide variety of experiences and what implications that has for you?
502708
My friend is a public defender.  Even guilty people have a right to a competent defense.  They need an attorney since the other side has one.  Someone who helps them get a fair deal or plea bargain.  Someone who can help them evaluate the evidence against them and decide if they should plead or go to jury trial.  They have a right to legal advice.  It's a part of our justice system.  You can disagree if you want.  That's just how our laws have evolved.