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 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 essentally slavery. This is actually a serious matter where such mandatory service upon its citizens is a crime, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the measure (which may be overturned by a pure democracy vote). 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, especially when alternatives exist.

   The summons for jury duty must be 100% voluntary. Anything else, such as being under duress or forced 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 evaluation of the court proceeding. 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 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 how the trial's outcome should be decided 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 $25/hr)
         Disadvantage of juror being uneducated or 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
 
   To further improve the situation, the entire court process should be replaced by a fully automated and computerized system. By doing so, trials become more streamlined and cost-effective than otherwise, essentially becoming free of charge.

   Converting to an electronic version won't be as difficult as some may think. Nearly 80% of the trial is a fairly straightforward process where attorneys/prosecutors on both sides essentially ask the same type of questions among their cases. The remaining difference is the attorney's attempt to persuade others to their side. An automated computer system mandated by the Justice Department can ask the same questions as the attorneys on both sides for fact gathering, but without the attempts of psychological manipulation.

   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 distraught or disadvantaged personnel in the proceeding. A typical attorney has a higher IQ than the average person and may take advantage of them, either for those on the stand or as a member of the jury. Especially, when considering that a jury member 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.

   An automated court proceeding will not be deceptive, nor will it encourage witnesses or defendants from divulging contrary information about themselves. The system will be designed to solely rely on factual information alone rather than determined by a lawyer's presentation of misleading arguments.
​​
   Overall, an automated system will be inherently more trustworthy and fair to all parties involved than current judicial procedures. The defendant will choose which of the four options listed above to decide their case.
bottom of page