Genghis Conn of Connecticut Local Politics just posted a notice that I think is very relevant: He is off to jury duty.
Now, I have met few people who like jury duty. It interrupts lives, you have to do it, legally, it could cost you money and most people consider it just to be an all around pain. I agree, having had to do it, myself.
On the other hand, the jury system really is a critically important protection for us all. Government officials can accuse people of crimes, but regular people decide if the accusations are correct. And, in civil lawsuits decided by jury, it is average, everyday people who decide which side is right - an important way of helping ensure that everyone stands on equal footing, even when one side in the lawsuit is very powerful.
So, while jury duty is a hassle, the idea of not having the protections of the jury system would be far worse.
Of course, that said, as a state legislator, I continue to be approached by people raising questions about the system by which people are selected for jury duty. People, from time to time - usually after they just got another jury duty notice - tell me that they frequently get called for jury duty. Typically, they also point out people they know who hardly ever (or never) get called.
Now, you do not have to serve jury duty if you have already served in the past three years. But, you can, in fact, serve jury duty again, if you were just called. The law, statutes section 51-217a(a), says that
But, let me pose what I think are two fair premises. First, most people would rather that they did not get a second jury duty notice if they just served. So I think few people would object if their recent service made it unlikely that they would be called for jury duty in the near future.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I think that the fairness of the system is best preserved if everyone who is eligible for jury duty eventually does have to serve. Then, it truly is something that we all have to do.
So, I am thinking about trying to get legislation brought up in the legislature's Judiciary Committee (of which I am a member) in the next regular legislative session to say that, in jury selection process, you cannot be called for jury duty if you already served and there are still eligible people who have not been called. Likewise, if you have been called twice, you should not be called again ahead of someone who has only been called once.
There might be some things that would have to be adjusted in this idea to ensure that the pool of people from which juries are drawn is representative of the state's population, but this seems like a sound, efficient, common sense thing to do.
For more information on how juries are selected, here is a report from the Office of Legislative Research that you might find informative.
Now, I have met few people who like jury duty. It interrupts lives, you have to do it, legally, it could cost you money and most people consider it just to be an all around pain. I agree, having had to do it, myself.
On the other hand, the jury system really is a critically important protection for us all. Government officials can accuse people of crimes, but regular people decide if the accusations are correct. And, in civil lawsuits decided by jury, it is average, everyday people who decide which side is right - an important way of helping ensure that everyone stands on equal footing, even when one side in the lawsuit is very powerful.
So, while jury duty is a hassle, the idea of not having the protections of the jury system would be far worse.
Of course, that said, as a state legislator, I continue to be approached by people raising questions about the system by which people are selected for jury duty. People, from time to time - usually after they just got another jury duty notice - tell me that they frequently get called for jury duty. Typically, they also point out people they know who hardly ever (or never) get called.
Now, you do not have to serve jury duty if you have already served in the past three years. But, you can, in fact, serve jury duty again, if you were just called. The law, statutes section 51-217a(a), says that
A person shall be excused from jury service during the jury year commencing September 1, 1999, and each jury year thereafter, upon request of that person, if during the next three preceding jury years such person appeared in a court for jury service and was not excused from such jury service.So, on the one hand, there is not a problem.
But, let me pose what I think are two fair premises. First, most people would rather that they did not get a second jury duty notice if they just served. So I think few people would object if their recent service made it unlikely that they would be called for jury duty in the near future.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I think that the fairness of the system is best preserved if everyone who is eligible for jury duty eventually does have to serve. Then, it truly is something that we all have to do.
So, I am thinking about trying to get legislation brought up in the legislature's Judiciary Committee (of which I am a member) in the next regular legislative session to say that, in jury selection process, you cannot be called for jury duty if you already served and there are still eligible people who have not been called. Likewise, if you have been called twice, you should not be called again ahead of someone who has only been called once.
There might be some things that would have to be adjusted in this idea to ensure that the pool of people from which juries are drawn is representative of the state's population, but this seems like a sound, efficient, common sense thing to do.
For more information on how juries are selected, here is a report from the Office of Legislative Research that you might find informative.
