agree to disagree? gray areas everywhere

[SoonerSarah]

I was called when my second was newborn, or around the time of her birth, I don't quite remember (she was either due to be born or less than 3 weeks old), I was BFing and recovering from a c-section. All I had to do was check off a box and I was excused.

Here is a website that has some different horror stories from SAHM, BFing Mom, those with special needs children and those with dependent elderly relatives. I would particularly look at the Hall of Shame. Its interesting. I realize that some people are likely to exaggerate in some respects, but, I do believe that there are some judges that are unsympathetic to any plight.

I believe there is an increase in the need of jurors over decades past, and it's likely because of the increase in lawsuits, frivilous or not.

http://www.familyfriendlyjuryduty.org/

 

[Colinsmom]

I was called to federal jury duty in May of 2008. My youngest was 2yo and my oldest was in 4yo preschool. While I worked part-time (and had child care during that time), I did not have child care on my days off and it would cost me over $100 PER DAY to use my sitter on those days. I ended up sitting on a jury for a MONTH. Fortunately my employer pays for jury duty, but they were getting really impatient with it. My kids went nuts, too, because they barely saw me during that time (the courthouse was over an hour train ride each way). I even missed my oldest's preschool graduation

Because of the length of the trial, the judge did tend to let off people who wouldn't get paid for jury duty, but at least one member of the jury had a brand new baby and worked nights - so she'd work at night and come to court during the day while her husband stayed home with the kids.

All that stress aside, it was a very interesting trial. It was pretty complicated and confusing, so they filled the jury with people with pretty good jobs (including two attorneys - were they ever shocked, lol). Both parties deserved to have a committed jury to hear them out.

 

[ceemys]

I am 43 and I have been called 3 times (all within a 4 month span). The first time I was supposed to call, was my due date on my 2nd child. They called me again 2 weeks later on maternity leave. The third time, I was exclusively Breast feeding my daughter and would have to pump. They excused me all three times. Once she was old enough to eat regular food and I was able to serve my name hasn't been called since. I would love to serve, but I am now waiting for them to send me my notice.

 

[rigs32]

I believe there is an increase in the need of jurors over decades past, and it's likely because of the increase in lawsuits, frivilous or not.

http://www.familyfriendlyjuryduty.org/

I highly, highly, highly doubt this. I live in a county with over a million people in it. There are a few hundred people called for jury duty at the Hall of Justice every week. They are called to cover city court, county court, and supreme court trials (in NY, our state level trial court is called the supreme court and the highest court is the court of appeals). There may be 1 or 12 trials going on in a given week. It is very, very rare that ANY of them are civil cases.


On holding areas:
It totally depends on where you live. If you're serving at the hall of justice, you are in a holding area until you're taking to a courtroom for a specific trial. I do domestic violence trials, so we lose a lot of people who can't be fair and impartial. But if you're called for a trial in a town or village court, you go straight into the courtroom as there's only that one case going on.

 

[pls5286]

Once when I was called to serve, I was quickly excused. It was right after I got married the first time and I worked EMS and was called to serve on my married name. Problem was it was a criminal trial and I was a witness for the prosecution under my maiden name.

I have now been permanently excused due to health. The superior clerk of court is my cousins ex wife and when I was called last she asked me why I was there and I told her the previous clerk excused me for 6 mos. I was very sick and she permanently excused me unless I get much better.

 

[limace]

In my opinion, pintamino and some others have nailed it: if the only people who served were people for whom it was convenient, then it wouldn't be a jury of your peers. If you ever faced criminal charges, how would you feel knowing no one on the jury was someone like you-someone struggling to care for small children and balance a tight budget and manage a home?

I'm not trying to minimize the hardship-I've been there, too. But it's one of the hard things that our democracy requires of all of us.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

Definitely stinks.

1) I do not think so.
2) Jury duty is one of the prices of being a USA citizen.
3) I, personally, do not believe ANYONE should be excused from jury duty.
4) When good people get out of jury duty, you get worse juror candidates.

NOTE: When I have employees who get notices, we WILL NOT entertain giving them an excuse that they are needed at work. In fact, I had a very well paid senior manager that told the court this. The court contacted us. We denied his work load was that bad and said we would let him serve. It was good, because he could use the extra money after we fired him for not serving. (Yes, it is written in the Work Rules that way.)

 

[kacaju]

Over the years I was called to serve when I was either close to my due date, or right after giving birth (I have 3 kids) so I always got out of serving. I was a SAHM for 5 years once my youngest started school and never had to serve I would get the notice and was always excused once I called. I got a p/t job last Feb and by April i was called once again. This time I had to go.

All those years of dreading to go, I finally went and I was surprised that once I got there it was all very interesting and I actually look forward to serving!!

In this case we were there until 10:30 when the judge came in and said the case was dismissed and we were free to go!

I now do not have to serve for 3 years

 

[LoveBWVVBR]

1) I do not think so.
2) Jury duty is one of the prices of being a USA citizen.
3) I, personally, do not believe ANYONE should be excused from jury duty.
4) When good people get out of jury duty, you get worse juror candidates.

NOTE: When I have employees who get notices, we WILL NOT entertain giving them an excuse that they are needed at work. In fact, I had a very well paid senior manager that told the court this. The court contacted us. We denied his work load was that bad and said we would let him serve. It was good, because he could use the extra money after we fired him for not serving. (Yes, it is written in the Work Rules that way.)

I personally think it's awful if you fired someone for trying to get out of jury duty. Did you ever think that maybe he was worried for his job if he had to miss work? My DH got called to Federal Jury Duty at the same time that he was starting work as the only engineer of a particular kind at a startup (now a large, successful company). They could not have replaced him for 6 months and survived since there were so few employees and all were specialized. His employer did write a letter and he was excused. There are truly legitimate reasons that some people cannot do jury duty. I'm pretty sure that the legal system would prefer job creation to job destruction, as was the case in my DH's situation.

As a SAHM to nursing babies, I would have done anything in my power to postpone jury duty. If that were not possible, I would have dealt with the legal ramifications of not going, as I simply would not have had another choice. Both of my children were physically unable to take a bottle as they both have a sensory disorder. I would not have starved my children to do my civic duty. Sorry, but my first duty is to my child. There are very legit reasons to postpone jury duty. As the mom to 2 and almost 5 year-old kids, I'd have no reason not to go to jury duty at this point, though. It would be inconvenient, but my DH could take a day off. No way would we have gone that route when they were dependent on nursing for nutrition, though.

 

[Michelle and crew]

If there is some leniency for some situations, it would still work out ok. There are just a few years when most women have small ones at home. Postponing service for that time wouldn't/isn't any big deal. There are many years I am not called so, in theory, years could just be manipulated.

Personally, I have been kicked off each time due to so many years working with delinquent children, battered wives, and alcohol and druggies. I know everyone in town, lol, and one side or another doesn't want me with my experience/knowledge on the jury. We wouldn't want someone with knowledge on it. (So don't give me the "jury of my peers, bs!)

 

[LoveBWVVBR]

I was called when my second was newborn, or around the time of her birth, I don't quite remember (she was either due to be born or less than 3 weeks old), I was BFing and recovering from a c-section. All I had to do was check off a box and I was excused.

Here is a website that has some different horror stories from SAHM, BFing Mom, those with special needs children and those with dependent elderly relatives. I would particularly look at the Hall of Shame. Its interesting. I realize that some people are likely to exaggerate in some respects, but, I do believe that there are some judges that are unsympathetic to any plight.

I believe there is an increase in the need of jurors over decades past, and it's likely because of the increase in lawsuits, frivilous or not.

http://www.familyfriendlyjuryduty.org/

I'm sorry, but the woman in the hall of shame who refused to serve because she was still nursing her 2 year-old is not a good example. I'm still nursing my 2 year-old too, but she can be away from me for a day or more if needed. A 2 year-old isn't nursing for nutrition. That just sounds like a crazy excuse to get out of jury duty to me and I am an extended BFing mom myself!

 

[Dizfan4life]

Oh, I feel for ya! I had to deal with the same thing a few years ago. I am a SAHM and at the time DS was only an infant and had a real bad problem with silent reflux. I had no one to care for him and if I did I wouldn't want to make anyone take care of him mainly because he would just scream for what seemed like hours! I got called for jury duty through my county and I told them that I couldn't honor that because of my situation, DH is the bread winner at our home also, and I threatened to take my screaming child in tow ! I also told them I refused to put him in the day care at the courts because you would look at him wrong and he would come down with Croup. After some talks and me not being so nice..... they let me off. Good luck!

 

[brymolmom]

1) I do not think so.
2) Jury duty is one of the prices of being a USA citizen.
3) I, personally, do not believe ANYONE should be excused from jury duty.
4) When good people get out of jury duty, you get worse juror candidates.

NOTE: When I have employees who get notices, we WILL NOT entertain giving them an excuse that they are needed at work. In fact, I had a very well paid senior manager that told the court this. The court contacted us. We denied his work load was that bad and said we would let him serve. It was good, because he could use the extra money after we fired him for not serving. (Yes, it is written in the Work Rules that way.)

I agree with many of your points. But please don't bring up an example with a 'senior manager' - obviously someone in that position (at least here in my company or any around me) would NOT be in a position of hardship to serve on a jury. It would only be inconvenient at most.

I'm not saying that everyone shouldn't serve, however, if it truly means a hardship (proven), then I don't think it was our forefathers' intention to have someone miss a meal or go with holes in their shoes in order to serve on a jury.

The vast majority of these cases and the people who try to get out of it would only truly be for inconvenience, laziness, not wanting to be there, etc. but some likely have a valid argument. Perhaps offering childcare would be one way that more people would be in a posiiton to fulfill their duty.

Like I've stated - I have served on a jury before and enjoyed the process and enjoyed doing my duty.

 

[gillenkl]

In DE they also do not let SAHM out of jury duty even if they have little ones. The only time I was excused was when the jury duty notice came for me to report around the time I was due to give birth to #2! They did excuse me for that! But not for having two little ones under school age, DH had to take a day off for that one and of course I was held there until 4:30.

I live in DE also! I'm a homeschool mom to a child on the autism spectrum and they wouldn't let me out. I got picked for a 4 day trial at Christmas time and DH had to take off work. Horrible.

 

[IndianaPrincess]

Wouldn't it be nice if childcare was provided!??!

 

[Hannathy]

I'm not saying that everyone shouldn't serve, however, if it truly means a hardship (proven), then I don't think it was our forefathers' intention to have someone miss a meal or go with holes in their shoes in order to serve on a jury.

Oh yes they did!!!!! There was no pay you for going to jury duty. No one went and chopped their wood or tended their garden or crops. No one went and baked the bread or milked the cows. So yes they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it. More so than most of the people trying to get out of it today.

 

[mrsklamc]

I have to disagree that NO ONE should get out of Jury Duty. Absolutes are rarely true.

For example, one person who was excused when DH went really wanted to serve but felt her English was not good enough. She felt she might miss something important to making a fair decision.

 

[Shleedogg]

I so agree with this.

Also the other poster who said if one of the ones trying to get out of it were on trial or their loved ones were on trial they would want a pool of people for the jury.

It truly saddens me that so many people just take our wonderful system of justice for granted and try to get out of their duty to their country.

I don't think people want to get out of their duty. I think, especially in this economy, that there are far more pressing, immediate needs. Going to jury duty for some might mean the difference between feeding your children and not, or paying a bill or not.

This is luckily not the case for me. I'm a SAHM, but DH has a large family, parents and sisters that are always willing to watch DD. DH also works from home and could work from a laptop downstairs while DD played or take a day or two off.

I don't understand all of you with the "suck it up" attitude, especially the 20 yr old who hasn't really had to deal with being the head of a household, with children to support. You all have a very idealistic view. Yes, it would be great if we could all serve. I'm sure most people really do want to. How can they be expected to make such sacrifices as going w/out pay? Or putting their children in the care of a complete stranger? There are questionable daycare providers that get screened by parents and still end up hitting, duct taping their mouths shut, or worse. With how quickly a parent would have to find someone to watch their children in the case of jury duty, you clearly would not have time to screen them properly.

The gov't needs to make it easier for everyone to serve. I had always been under the impression that they compensated you financially, I guess that is not the case?

 

[wbn36]

I vaguely remember a judge being VERY upset with a woman for doing that once, and charging her with contempt. I wouldn't suggest it.

I am a daycare provider out of my home. There is just about no way to get out of Federal Jury Duty. My colleague cares for several children for several different families. She was not excused. She had to tell these families that basically any day over the next three weeks that she could be called in. Very frustrating. Would not advise what the above poster suggested. Federal is a whole different ball game. They do not have any sense of humor on that type of stuff.

 

[mhsjax]

In my opinion, pintamino and some others have nailed it: if the only people who served were people for whom it was convenient, then it wouldn't be a jury of your peers. If you ever faced criminal charges, how would you feel knowing no one on the jury was someone like you-someone struggling to care for small children and balance a tight budget and manage a home?

I'm not trying to minimize the hardship-I've been there, too. But it's one of the hard things that our democracy requires of all of us.

I also wouldn't want someone there who was worrying about being home with their kids or just really po'd in general and not wanting to be there. I know that if that was the case for me, I wouldn't pay close attention, sorry but that is the way I am wired. I also don't believe that there aren't enough people that would really wan to do it, my dad wasn't called until he was into his 70's. I remember when he got the notice, he was thrilled and said it was about time, he was so disappointed when it was for something really small.

And what if the person on trial was someone that stole money from a company or like our local Ponzie guy here where I am from. I don't think that the local SAHM who struggles for money is going to be partial to someone that has stolen millions from people or businesses either, especially when we see how they live and everything they can afford on someone else's money. it works both ways.