The headline at the top of the US Courts’ website about jury service states—in large italicized text—that “[j]ury service is one of the most important civic duties you can perform. The protection of rights and liberties . . . largely is achieved through the teamwork of a judge and jury.” There are certainly strong counterarguments against this statement (not least among them the high number of out-of-court settlements in recent years) but it does speak to the American belief that our judicial system, with its right to a trial by jury espoused in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic society. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson noted: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Jury Duty’s Fall from Grace
How then has this once-lauded American duty deteriorated into a task on par with waiting in line at the DMV or watching paint dry? Some commentators are likely to cite the declining knowledge of civics amongst the great majority of the population. There is more than likely some merit in this argument—a survey conducted in 2016 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center showed that a mere 26% of Americans could correctly name the three branches of government. The same survey conducted in 2019 showed that the number has slightly increased, to 39%, but that still represents “a long way to go.”
Recognizing that this lack of knowledge likely makes Americans more apathetic towards all the general processes involved in governance (voting participation is also at its lowest point) Rep. Hastings (D. Fla.) among others, introduced H.R. 849, the Civics Learning Act of 2019. Rep. Hastings saw the results of the 2019 Annenberg survey and said: “It’s shocking that, in 2018, only a third of Americans could name all three branches of government. This startling reality reveals that federal support for civics education programs must be renewed, both to strengthen our democracy and the future of our students.”
Another hurdle to jury participation is logistics. America has been experiencing a staggering growth in consumer pricesthat is much larger than the inflation rate. The impact of rising consumer prices largely affects those in lower-income brackets, but is also affecting those in the middle-classes. The New York Times last year featured stories and budgets from four “middle-class” families around the country to show what the new American middle-class life entails. The struggles are obviously only compounded and worsened for lower-income families. This means that it is more difficult than ever for most Americans to take time away from their jobs, children, ailing family members, and other concerns to sit on a jury.
In order to combat these issues courts around the country are offering various amenities that hope to ease the strain on jurors and litigants alike. Many jurisdictions are now offering some form of childcare or child-focused amenities for individuals coming to their local courthouse. Another reason for ignoring a jury summons is the conception that jury duty is a waste of time. In order to combat this, courts have been implementing various forms of summons that reduce the amount of time that those summoned spend waiting at the court house to know if they will be actually called to serve. Courts have been implementing one-day/one-trial systems since the 70s, and others are now utilizing internet-based services that allow jurors to answer questionnaires, request exemptions, and get in virtual waiting lines.
Another option for increasing juror turnout would be to actually enforce the mandatory nature of jury service. However, this would likely cause more harm than good. Judicial efficiency would be harmed the most administratively—the amount of hearings courts would have for jurors who still chose to/can’t appear for jury duty would be at the least, burdensome. Also, enforcing failure-to-appear laws may in fact further burden lower-income individuals who simply can’t attend jury service. These individuals are already harmed by minor run-ins with the courts, and this would only increase if missed jury duty were added to their plates. Perhaps in recognition of this, the National Center for State Courts suggests that this practice is only taken after other alternatives have been attempted.
Re-elevation to Jury Duty’s Lofty Pedestal
How likely is it that these changes will increase juror participation and turnout? It’s hard to say. No doubt, making any process easier and more streamlined increases its use. However, for a process that has become so loathed that there are webpages dedicated to jokes about it, these changes likely won’t be enough to outweigh this negative perception on their own.
In his book, Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen’s Guide to Constitutional Action, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson takes the view that yes, jury duty is an important civic duty, and is something that we as Americans should endure for the good of the justice system and our fellow citizens. However, beyond that, he reasons that the view that should really be promoted, and the real reason for serving on a jury, is the fulfillment that comes from service. Jury duty represents one of the few times as citizens that we get to practice the values we deem so important to the American way of life: fairness, equality, participation, and liberty. Further, because of the (hopefully) diverse pool of jurors those individuals who serve are able to build other useful skills including teamwork, crucial thinking, and debate—all while being introduced to individuals who the juror likely would have never met in other circumstances.
Indeed, this renewed sense of the importance of jury service is often remarked on by those who serve on a jury. In his Letter of Recommendation: Jury Duty, Ian S. Port mirrors many of Mr. Ferguson’s arguments. He notes that it was a revelation to see how the justice system works first-hand, and to realize that sometimes the decisions really do come down to a set of the defendant’s peers. What is most interesting perhaps is that Mr. Port recognizes that many of us are stuck in our daily rituals, those things that we do every day because it’s simply how we get from one day to the next. Jury duty is able to break this monotony: “Life is mostly an accumulation of habits, slight turns, chance occurrences, but [serving on a jury] we were tasked with making a decision that would instantly and probably irrevocably alter the course of our fellow citizens’ lives.” Not only are jurors afforded the opportunity to experience the justice system, and meet and form lasting connections with fellow jurors, but they are also able to get a “glimpse at the true mess of the real, and the chance to ever-so-slightly neaten it up.” Perhaps then, this sentiment then in and of itself should be the reason that jury duty regains its lofty place upon the pillar of great American responsibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment