Negative Perception of Jury Duty Within Society: Is the Legal Community to Blame?

One of America's most widely recognized sporting events aired this past Sunday: Super Bowl LIII. While many fans had true stake in the game at hand, most viewers were much more attentive to the commercials between plays. One such commercial was that of Hyundai.

In the commercial, Jason Bateman, starring as a bellhop, takes visitors to various "floors." The floors represent life experiences, correlating with the level of positivity of the experience as high levels being the most enjoyable and low levels being the least. Among the lowest floors of positivity: root canals, a vegan dinner party, and jury duty.

Immediately after Hyundai released the ad to the public, the company received backlash from People from the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for implying that veganism is unpleasant. PETA responded to the ad by tweeting a criticism of the company and sending its supporters to one of Hyundai's competitors:

PETA tweet

In response to the flood of tweets in criticism on Hyundai's commercial, the company tweeted, "we actually love vegan food and are glad its going more mainstream," and proceeded to post recipes of various vegan food recipes. 

Where, in all of this outrage and resistance to anti-vegan sentiments, is the legal community in defending one of our Nation's greatest civic duties? Jury duty, after all, is one of the lowest levels that the elevator goes to in the advertisement. The advertisement clearly implies that jury duty is a detestable experience. Yet, the legal community has not uttered a single word criticizing Hyundai for the advertisement. 

Jury duty is at least as important of an issue as that of that cause for which PETA fights. The Constitution guarantees litigants the right to a trial by jury. Further, the Preamble of the American Jury Project states that the jury "has played a crucial part in our democracy for over two hundred years." Still, the legal community is silent in the face of an antagonistic attack. 

The difference between the two experiences is clear: PETA spoke out against the antagonism of the advertisement. The legal community did not. PETA drew attention to the importance of its cause. The legal community did not. 

As various news sources covered the dispute between Hyundai and PETA, they illustrated the advertisement. USA Today described the "floors" or metaphorical lifetime experiences as "a number of irritating destinations." Fox News used the phrase "life events everyone wants to avoid."  

If the legal community continues to allow society to put forth negative perceptions regarding jury duty, Americans, many of whom have never even participated in jury duty, will continue to attempt to skirt their civic responsibility and look down upon the mere idea of jury duty. 

While jury duty is time consuming, it is a valuable way to participate in the community. Furthermore, jury duty gives Americans a chance to learn more about the justice system, bridging the gap between the legal community and those looking in from the outside. Finally, jury trials are foundational to the American judicial system in that they give the public the opportunity to participate in judicial decision-making.  

What can the legal community do to encourage a positive perception of jury duty?

• Promote the benefits that jury duty has on the American legal system to friends and family. 
• Speak out against antagonistic sentiments from the media regarding serving on a jury. 
• If you have been asked to serve on a jury in the past, give insight to others so that those who have not served feel less isolated from the experience and more willing to participate.