It
is almost a truism that everyone is trying to get out of jury duty. Like home remedies
for a sore throat or suggestions to help a baby to sleep through the night, it
seems every other person has his or her own recommendation on how to get out of jury
duty. David Letterman even put out a Top Ten List on the subject—like the pocket guide to getting out of jury duty.
Jury
duty certainly is not guaranteed to be pleasant, and it often costs those who
serve. Across party lines and ideological fronts, many would agree that jury duty should pay better and that the process should be more efficient. Recent studies
have also focused on the reality of a psychological burden associated with the weight of jury duty, so perhaps society is simply asking too much. On the other hand,
perhaps jury duty should be psychologically uncomfortable.
Potential
jurors are summoned, screened, and selected to create a panel of citizen jurists.
While the judge weighs the law, the jury weighs the facts and applies it to the
case. Many feel uncomfortable “judging” others whether due to faith, philosophy,
or feelings of inadequacy. Jurors are asked to keep silent about the case when
they return home in the evenings, to see difficult images or witness
heartbreaking testimony, and to sit a few feet from the person whose future
they weigh in balance. None of this is done haphazardly. It is done with purpose and in response to the significance of the duty at hand. With
this level of responsibility and importance, perhaps it should not be easy nor
comfortable. It might be that some discomfort is a sign that the process has
worked.
Jury duty certainly has positive benefits. In one study, forty-two percent of recent jurors indicated a more favorable view of jury duty compared to five percent of those indicating a less favorable view. Additionally,serving on a jury positively influences the juror’s perspective on the “justice and equality of the legal system.” Despite these positive correlations, other studies have indicated that while many who served describe jury duty as “a worthwhile experience,” far fewer label it as “a pleasant duty.” In another study, seventy percent of jurors confessed to feeling stress related to serving. The data seems to indicate
that jurors find something worthwhile in something not quiet pleasant. Could it
be that jurors find greater confidence in the system through genuinely struggling to weigh the evidence, to judge others, and to find
justice? Perhaps recognizing that a group of citizens agonized over or debated finding someone guilty helps former jurors to know that the burden was met and justice was done. Perhaps knowing that it was burdensome and not taken lightly instills confidence that the system works should they ever need it.
Though the risk of "significant [psychological] consequences" to most people is "quite low," some people should not be asked to serve on certain
cases. Those who have suffered assaults and losses too similar to those in the case should not be asked to undo their own recovery when others could ably serve. Likewise,
those of special conviction against judging others should have their beliefs
respected and be allowed to forgo service. But if one is capable of serving,
then perhaps society should simply acknowledge that their service is a burden born out of
necessity. It may just be that the fact that people struggle to find the truth and to do
justice is what gives us faith that justice may be done. While society should seek
to prevent dire harm to its jurors, it may do well to simply admit that discomfort—and
perhaps sacrifice—is invariably part of this service.
No comments:
Post a Comment