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 to place their own 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.

   Not to mention the fact that not paying for services rendered as well as being forced labor is essentially slavery. This is a serious matter where such mandatory service of this nature should be criminally charged. Duty for the country is in regards to military service as a requirement for the survival of the nation. It doesn't apply for forced labor of this kind, 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 such mandatory service upon the citizens of the country, a better alternative would be to introduce 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 improves the overall evaluation of the court proceeding. Professional jurors are 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 trained professional 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 between a judge or jury depends on the context and rules of the court, but this policy should be changed to be more flexible for the defendant whose fate is determined by its outcome.

   There should be four possibilities for the court to proceed (only the defendant chooses):

      Option A: (voluntary juror)
         Volunteer from double opt-in list willing to serve (without threat of fine/imprisonment or coercion)
         Jurors have the ability to refuse participation for any reason
         Jurors paid a fair wage (at least $25/hr)
         Disadvantage of juror being uneducated and unskilled in deciding such matters (may also be biased)

      Option B: (professional juror)
         Professionally trained juror ensures quality and consistency throughout the process
         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 a cold and 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
Further Considerations
 
   An even greater improvement than the above would be if the entire court process was replaced by a fully automated and computerized system. In other words, attorneys and judges will be replaced by a highly sophisticated computer system that handles the entire court proceeding by itself. By doing so, trials become more streamlined and cost-effective than otherwise, essentially becoming free of charge.

   Converting to a computerized system won't be as difficult as some may think. Nearly 80% of the trial process is fairly straightforward where attorneys/prosecutors on both sides essentially ask the same kind of questions among cases. The remaining difference is the attorney's attempt to persuade others to favor their side.

   An important reason for automating the trial process is the need for a more honest judicial system that is not influenced by a lawyer's "tricks of the trade", of attempting to take advantage of emotionally-attached or distraught personnel in the proceeding.

   A computerized trial system of this nature will not be deceptive, nor will it encourage witnesses and defendants from divulging contrary information about themselves. The futuristic system will be designed to solely rely on factual information rather than being determined by a lawyer's presentation of misleading arguments. Essentially, an automated justice system will be inherently more trustworthy and fair to all parties involved than current judicial procedures. 
bottom of page