top of page
Jury Duty
Issue
The common law jury system (jury duty) requires citizens to serve regardless if they are interested in doing so as their civic duties to the community. However, not everyone may be thrilled at the prospect of deciding another person's fate under such forced circumstances, or place their lives on hold until a lengthy trial is completed.
The reluctance to serve jury duty is understandable: (1) people are forced to leave their families and chosen professions for extended periods, (2) employers are forced to pay for services not rendered at their businesses, (3) career advancement may be limited or postponed due to prolonged trials, and (4) lack of education or experience in deciding another's fate may result in a double standard among cases.
Serving the summons of mandatory jury duty places an undue burden upon both businesses and citizens alike. If jurors are forced to participate, it places the judicial system at risk of having an unfair and biased proceeding where jurors wish to be elsewhere than the courtroom.
In addition, not paying for services rendered is essentially slavery. Jury duty was introduced many years ago when slavery was considered to be normal, so why does our judicial system of today continue to rely on such an immoral and illegal practice?
Forced servitude of this nature should be issued a cease and desist order. Duty and obligation for the country such as military service is a requirement for the survival of the nation. The rule doesn't apply for forced labor situations especially when alternatives exist.
The summons for jury duty must be 100% voluntary. Anything else, such as being under duress or forced to participate due to the threat of fine/imprisonment, causes a mistrial.
Solution
Rather than requiring mandatory service upon the citizens of the country, a better alternative would be to consider the concept of a professional juror.
Professional jurors are willing participants who are paid by the courts and trained to assess the facts of a case that will improve court proceedings. Professional jurors are also less likely to be swayed by the degree of articulation or psychological stratagem used by some attorneys, thereby, reducing the overall duration and expense of the litigation process.
More importantly, a professional juror will maintain the consistency of impartiality throughout the proceeding so that a defendant's fate is not determined by the particular fluctuation or randomness of jury composition upon a given trial.
By standardizing the skill set and discipline of a professional juror, the civil rights of citizens would be better respected, businesses would be more productive, and the quality, consistency, and efficiency of the litigation process would be greatly improved.
Choice Selection
The ability to choose the trial's selection depends upon the context and rules of the court, but this policy should be more flexible towards the defendant whose fate is determined by its decision.
There should be four possibilities for the proceeding:
Option A: (voluntary juror)
Volunteer from double opt-in list willing to serve (without threat of fine/imprisonment)
Jurors have the ability to refuse participation for any reason
Jurors paid a fair wage (at least $20/hr)
Disadvantage of juror being uneducated or unskilled in deciding matters (may also be biased)
Option B: (professional juror)
Professionally trained juror ensures quality and consistency throughout the trial
Improved assessment of evaluating the facts (better decisions made for the case)
Paid the same or greater than federal judges (avg $38-46/hr)
Disadvantage of not enough trained professionals for the proceeding (smaller-sized jury)
Option C: (judge)
Normal bench trial rules
Option D: (A.I. juror)
Artificial Intelligence juror possible in the future
Advantage of being decided by an emotionless decision that won't be biased in any way
To err is human, an A.I. juror won't be influenced by a lawyer's twisted logic and attempts of manipulation
Disadvantage of a person's fate being determined by a computer program (may be inhumane)
Other Considerations
To further improve the trial process, it may be possible to replace the entire court procedure with an automated computerized system (not A.I. driven). If done correctly with both sides being adequately represented by the software, trials would become more streamlined and cost-effective than otherwise. Also, without attorneys/judges being involved, the trial may become free of charge as another alternative.
Creating an automated court procedure won't be as difficult as some may think. The majority of trials are fairly straightforward where attorneys/prosecutors on both sides essentially ask the same kind of questions among their cases. The remaining difference is the attorney's attempt to persuade jurors to their side.
A computerized system offered by the Justice Department may ask the same type of questions as a human attorney would, but without the attempts of psychological manipulation to influence the proceeding where only the facts are presented for the case.
An important reason for this is the need for a more honest judicial system that is not influenced by a lawyer's "tricks of the trade", of attempt to take advantage of emotionally distraught or disadvantaged personnel in the proceeding.
In other words, a typical attorney has a higher IQ than an average person that may be used to take advantage of others, either for those on the stand or as a member of the jury. Especially, when considering that a juror is forced to participate under the threat of fine/imprisonment and may not be mentally prepared or willing to deal with the situation that is imposed upon them.
A computerized trial system will not be deceptive, nor will it encourage witnesses or defendants from divulging contrary information about themselves with twisted logic. The system will be designed to solely rely on factual information alone rather than be determined by a lawyer's particular presentation of misleading and disingenuous arguments to influence its outcome.
bottom of page