slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

One of today's editorials in the Waco Tribune Herald follows.

In this instance, I agree wholeheartedly. I have always accepted jury duty as part of being a good citizen. In all honesty, I know few family or friends who agree with my stance on this matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An old witticism holds that the problem with juries is they're made up of people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. One wonders if that will be so amusing after District Clerk Joe Gimble sends out letters informing the 270 people who simply blew off jury summons this month that they can now explain all this to State District Judge Ralph Strother and why they shouldn't be held in contempt of court.

Onerous government overreach? Hardly. And it's high time.

In laying out the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers stressed through the 6th Amendment that citizens charged with a crime had a right to trial before an impartial jury, a right that can be traced all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215. And while this amendment originally applied on to federal trials, the 14th Amendment helped ensure this also applied to trials involving the individual states.

But federal and state justice systems can't function if citizens ignore jury summons, as is reportedly the case in McLennan County. District Clerk Gimble says on average 70% of people summoned for jury duty don't bother to respond to court notices. We're not talking about people who show up for jury duty to then seek waivers before the judge. And, we're not talking about people who understandably seek to change jury service dates because of other unavoidable obligations. We're talking about scofflaws who in the past have probably gotten away with ignoring jury summons and so feel free to do so again. Happily, Judge Strother is giving the 270 people in this particular case a chance to reschedule their service. Our advice: Take the offer...and fast.

Some of us were a little doubtful when district judges and Gimble warned late last year they would take more seriously those who ignore jury duty, but we're glad to see them actually laying down the law. It's overdue. People held in contempt for failing to appear for jury duty can face fines ranging from $100 to $1000. And those who think they can also ignore Gimble's forthcoming letters are subject to a personal visit by a sheriff's deputy with orders to haul them into court.

Americans should revel in jury service, given it's one of the very few obligations a citizen has. It ensures our courts operate properly. And, with controversial trials coming up involving everything from liability in the deadly 2013 West fertilizer plant explosion to guilt or innocence in the 2015 Twin Peaks biker shootout, citizens should be a part of the equation ensuring that any justice dealt is truly just.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

I concur. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Too many people don't see a jury duty as a duty of all citizens and will someday replace the system we have worked up through the Constitution. I have always wondered why people don't see what we will get in replacement of jury duty if people keep trying to avoid that duty. So many don't seem to see that if they continue to avoid that duty some elites from above will stop trying to take care of the service.

markinny

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Slatten49: I agree wholeheartedly with jury duty!...but I feel our Founding Fathers made a big mistake or the tort system has tainted the system in the fact that our juries sometimes reveal that they are not necessary the sharpest tools in the shed! The statement in our Bill of Rights that your entitled to a jury of your peers has come to haunt us! I believe like the e*******l college...our juries should be education and on level compass!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

L.D., I suspect that the people who avoid jury duty make it more likely for the less desired in jurors to serve. That suggests those "not necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed" would be meting out justice. I believe in seeking a complete cross-section of society. For balance, both academicians and laypersons should be welcomed.

Our jury system, while flawed, is likely the fairest legal process to be found. The more representative of the complete populace, the more appropriate the jury. It is left up to the prosecution and defense to pick and choose wisely.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Unfortuntely The defense seems to have an edge in that se******n process!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Unfortunately? If for any reason you were a defendant, you might think differently. :wink: It is not the defense team's fault if the prosecutorial effort proves incomplete. 8-) Flaws in the legal process are more often due to human error than systemic error.

badbobby Loc: texas

Hey Papi

woodguru

The jury system as it is evolving at this point is too subject to juries that are too hopelessly biased to judge cases with the intended lack of bias. It is getting to where the likelihood of getting one single biased person in high profile cases such as Manafort or a Trump related thing and the one person will have decided it's a witch hunt and acquit them. Ignorant people cannot leave their biases outside the court room.

One holdout was screwing up the Manafort charges, that is not the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work, that one person is not reflecting the validity of the cases as they were laid out.

Then there is regional bias, a jury in one region will come up with entirely different outcomes and awards. We will be far better off with an AI system that takes virtually everything properly into account. Equal crimes across the country will have 100% equal sentences.

woodguru

Ignorant juries can be ruthless and inflexible in terms of making up their minds to where they are not listening to evidence or common sense anymore, they can also be tight in monetary awards on one side of the spectrum and inexplicably generous on the other.

My brain dead cousin in law sat on a jury that awarded some dips**t over a million dollars that should have gotten nothing for his accident that was his fault, he kept saying he must have been right because 11 out of 13 agreed with him. 11 morons sat on that jury, because of a good attorney who convinced them that something "could" have happened even though it didn't. I asked my cousin's husband if he thought this is what happened, he said no but that's not the point, it could have.