To paraphrase Winston Churchill: "It's the worst possible system. Except for all the others."
Honestly, I get a genuine lump in my throat and tear in my eye when I watch the informational video about Jury Service. Justice administered in open court. Jury of your peers. Citizens ensuring the rule of law and building the cornerstone of civilization. Yeah, baby! I'm so behind all that.
But I have to say: Why, in this day and age, can't they handle the bureaucracy of this a bit better?
Must we sit in big stuffy rooms being force-fed television (OK, it was PBS and Ken Burn's Jazz series, so it could have been worse) or be shuttered in a windowless closet with pathetic dial-up modems? Could they not possibly set up a damn WIFI internet connection or at the very least ethernet?
Must we be herded like sheep from one part of the building to the other, kept standing in crowded hallways or squozen down half-working elevators (my god, we nearly had a catastrophic domino-effect for a moment there), hollered at by barely audible minions, and summoned by identification numbers that turn out NOT TO BE UNIQUE?
Could we not be sorted in advance into people who can't possibly spend six to eight weeks in a jury and those who conceivably could ~ rather than having to wait while a seemingly endless queue of potential jurors go up, ONE BY ONE, to explain their status to the judge? Why send an unsorted mob to
voir dire for what is known to be a lengthy trial? Surely it makes more sense to pre-qualify people into "can't serve now, could serve for 1-5 days, could serve for 2 weeks, could serve for more." Swear them in before a magistrate up front, if you have to, as people check in that morning.
Speaking of which: how can we truly have a jury of our peers if the only people who can afford to be on juries are those a) whose full-time employer will keep paying their salaries while they serve; b) who are retired; or c) who are on welfare. The self-employed, underemployed, and unemployed are completely unrepresented. Anyone who works for an hourly wage is unrepresented. The court raised the daily compensation from the previous laughable $14 (a day!) to the princely sum of $30. Excuse me, do you know anybody who can survive in a major metropolis on $30 a day? So, what, we're supposed to subsidize the justice system
with our savings?
I found my first actual trial duty, several years ago, a fascinating and valuable civic experience. I'd love to do it again sometime. But I can't afford to pay for it out of my own pocket, and as a matter of principle, I shouldn't have to. At the very least, the government ought to pay jurors minimum wage. Need I add the payment ought to be tax exempt, too? And they have the balls to ask you if you want to donate your $4 worth of travel reimbursement to the court. Sheyah! I don't think so.
It's too bad that the whole process so closely represents a cattle call. It doesn't exactly inspire people to look forward to their citizenly responsibilities. One positive note, though: the court clerks and various personnel were uniformly polite and cheerful, if not always crackerjack examples of swiftness. They definitely get points for not becoming surly while dealing with a pretty darn cranky and recalcitrant segment of the public. On the whole though, it seems to me that this is a missed opportunity to build community and engage and impress the public.
I get called up for DC Superior Court every two years, like clockwork. I'm a non-felonious, registered voter, and that apparently makes me prime jury meat. I'll be interested to see what, if anything, has changed for the better next time. And heaven preserve me from Grand Jury service, which is even more preposterous (12 weeks! every day! as if!).
Labels: rant