agree to disagree? gray areas everywhere

[pintamino]

You just prove my point. It's your right, provided by this country, to post whatever opinion you have on this forum.

I always encourage (and have on this thread) people to get involved with changing legislation they don't agree with - that's also everybody's right and one I exercise. There is no way to change anything unless people speak up - and unless people have a realistic improvement to suggest.

 

[Hannathy]

It is different, because in that case, the SAHM's (or SAHD) spouse could use FMLA to get time off work to care for the family. However, no such act exists for jury duty-maybe it should.

Not every place people work is covered under this so this is not a good argument.
In fact one of the most adamant stated her DH was self employed so doesn't apply

 

[kaytieeldr]

I am the one with geographic issues and new to a small town when I had issues getting childcare for jury duty. I would have gladly called a bonded or certified child care person if given a list. Sorry if that goes against your assumptions of people you assume you know on the Dis.

I genuinely respect and admire you for that, and apologize for painting everyone with the same broad brush!!

If you read the DIS for any length of time - notably, "adults only weddings" threads when they appear, but even THIS thread - you'll see that you tend to be the exception. More people would use 'I don't know/trust this list' as their excuse that would actually take advantage of such an opportunity.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I don't see a problem with asking for compensation for that childcare, whether working or not. If you insist that parents serve on jury duty instead of deferring it for a few years, then in my opinion the court system needs to eat the cost of it.

Respectfully, no. Serving on a jury is one's civic duty. It's not as if it's expected on a daily or even monthly basis - there are rules regarding how frequently one can be called, and jury duty can be deferred for a period of time. But if parents need to make care arrangements, or find funding for care, they should use the deferment option - not expect the court system to PAY them, which is what "eating the cost" of daycare would be.

 

[herdtoDisney]

Not every place people work is covered under this so this is not a good argument.
In fact one of the most adamant stated her DH was self employed so doesn't apply

The point I am trying to make is that-as a nation, either remove the blocks to SAHM's serving, or willingly give a requested deferrment. They'll still be serving, but maybe not at that particular moment in time. I have not seen a single poster in here who doesn't WANT to serve-just that it may be impossible at this particular moment. The system for deferrment seems to be wildly varied and not consistent.

 

[Swimalie]

Sorry I happen to agree. All parents should have a plan in mind if they need to leave their child with someone. I didn't say it had to be in place with 1 phone call or perfect but it should be thought of.

Someone else can care for your child for a day. Kids are resilient.


We judge people all of the time so why is this any different?

For a day, yes. An emergency option for a day or a few hours is needed. But trials can last for days or weeks even. When I was with the DA's office, I worked on a murder trial that lasted 3 weeks and that was considered a short one for a murder trail. As a stay at home mom, I don't have options for someone to take care of my child for 3 weeks, 9 hours a day. And I doubt many other stay at home moms do, either.

I have no problem serving on a jury. I'd love to serve and yet have never been called. But not when I am the only care taker for my son who is not old enough to care for himself at home alone.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Lets look at it this way: As an American Woman I have an average life expectancy of about 80 years. Once I turn 18, I'm eligible for Jury Duty. That leaves me approximately 62 years of being eligible to serve on a jury (even though in my state you are expempt once your turn 70, so lets call it 52 years of eligiblity). Of those 52 years of eligibility there were/are approximately 4 years where it is a HUGE inconvenience for me to do it. I'd just like to be excuse for those couple of years. It's not THAT much of a big deal, that still leaves 48 years of me be willing to go. 48 years of willingness isn't enough?

Well, that's you. What about women who have, say, seven children two or two and a half years apart?

And how, then, could a woman of childbearing age, or a mom of young children, or a breastfeeding mom, possibly have a chance of having a trial decided by a jury of her peers - if all her peers were exempted from jury duty? Yes, I know my examples are extreme, but they're not impossible.

 

[Hannathy]

Well, that's you. What about women who have, say, seven children two or two and a half years apart?

And how, then, could a woman of childbearing age, or a mom of young children, or a breastfeeding mom, possibly have a chance of having a trial decided by a jury of her peers - if all her peers were exempted from jury duty? Yes, I know my examples are extreme, but they're not impossible.

I agree! I don't want half the population that are in their prime physically and mentally being excluded if I ever need a jury.

 

[scrapquitler]

Well, that's you. What about women who have, say, seven children two or two and a half years apart?

And how, then, could a woman of childbearing age, or a mom of young children, or a breastfeeding mom, possibly have a chance of having a trial decided by a jury of her peers - if all her peers were exempted from jury duty? Yes, I know my examples are extreme, but they're not impossible.

A jury of her peers does NOT mean a jury of only people exactly like her. A jury of one's peers in the context of our court system means a random sampling of the eligible jurors. If a defendents 'peers' only consisted of people exactly like him (in terms of age, race, economic status, educational background, etc) then it wouldn't be a fair and impartial jury. If it were only people of the same age/status, then only women would be serving on juries for women defendants, only retired people on the jury of an elderly person, only members of one's own ethnic group or race, etc. And that is certainly not the juries that we want or have.

And if women who are breastfeeding or who have small children can ask for an exemption, it wouldn't mean that there would be NO women of childbearing age serving on juries, just like people over 70 are exempt in CT now, but there still ARE people in that age group who can and do serve. Right now I am still of childbearing age, and I could and would serve, even if exempted...because now I am not in a situation where serving would be impossible _right now_.

All I have been saying is that there should be FLEXIBILITY in the system.

The way the system works now, it is easier to just blow off the jury duty summons and not show up at all (because I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for not showing up, at least here in CT) rather than try to be excused. And THAT is not a good thing for getting people interested in taking their civic duty seriously.

 

[jodifla]

A jury of her peers does NOT mean a jury of only people exactly like her. A jury of one's peers in the context of our court system means a random sampling of the eligible jurors. If a defendents 'peers' only consisted of people exactly like him (in terms of age, race, economic status, educational background, etc) then it wouldn't be a fair and impartial jury. If it were only people of the same age/status, then only women would be serving on juries for women defendants, only retired people on the jury of an elderly person, only members of one's own ethnic group or race, etc. And that is certainly not the juries that we want or have.

And if women who are breastfeeding or who have small children can ask for an exemption, it wouldn't mean that there would be NO women of childbearing age serving on juries, just like people over 70 are exempt in CT now, but there still ARE people in that age group who can and do serve. Right now I am still of childbearing age, and I could and would serve, even if exempted...because now I am not in a situation where serving would be impossible _right now_.

All I have been saying is that there should be FLEXIBILITY in the system.

The way the system works now, it is easier to just blow off the jury duty summons and not show up at all (because I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for not showing up, at least here in CT) rather than try to be excused. And THAT is not a good thing for getting people interested in taking their civic duty seriously.

Yikes!!!! This is NOT a good idea.

My husband was on a jury where a college kid juror decided not to show up the second day......and there were some serious consequences to that.

 

[JaymeC]

Yikes!!!! This is NOT a good idea.

My husband was on a jury where a college kid juror decided not to show up the second day......and there were some serious consequences to that.

I think the person means not showing at all. Maybe pretending you didn't get the letter at all. I know when we lived in CA they were just putting into place a new law in San Diego county that you could be fined the 3rd time you didn't show up for jury duty at all

 

[scrapquitler]

I just read the state statute for CT regarding Failure to Appear. It's a misdemeanor, and the fine is $200. That is only IF they decide to pursue it.

I would NOT do this, but frankly, a $200 fine would have cost me less than having my husband close his business for the day. Again, a little flexibility would probably make people decide NOT to ignore a jury duty summons, but when it is easier to not show up than to try to get excused, it becomes very tempting for people to ignore that summons.

 

[blondietink]

My brother was called to Federal Grand Jury Duty a couple of years ago. He had to report to the state capital, where the grand jury was held, once per month for 2 YEARS! He was reimbursed for all of his expenses. He said it was very interesting, big time crime (intersate transport of stolen goods, kidnapping, money laundering, etc.) and would do it again in a heartbeat.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But there IS flexibility. Granted, it may depend on the court and the state, but you can ask to have your jury duty delayed; you can ask to have the venue changed under certain conditions...

Last time I got called was for District (I guess what some of you all are calling county) court. There are four courthouses, and one is in a city I'm really reluctant to enter... okay, I admit, for crime reasons . Well, when I called the number on the card and spoke with a very nice woman, she explained what I should put on the card to request a change of courts. I did, and to show I wasn't trying to make things easier on myself, requested the court furthest away - about a 35 minute drive, or an hour and a half using public transportation plus taxis. I was stunned with my replacement assignment - the courthouse I can see from the front door of my apartment building!

I know people in this thread have claimed that SAHMs are being picked on, that if they could do jury duty they would but they can't because (any one of a number of excuses). But I have to be blunt - it seems that with many people, when they don't have being a SAHM/childcare/homeschooling*/self-employed spouse**/etc, current excuses, they'll come up with other excuses not to perform jury duty.

*Isn't one of the benefits of home schooling that it doesn't necessarily occur during "standard" school hours, that it can be SO flexible?
**Relatively certain that being self-employed isn't a valid reason for the juror to be excused, so it would seem entirely reasonable that a judge wouldn't accept a juror's spouse being self-employed as the reason that juror couldn't serve.

 

[arminnie]

I don't think they care at all in Arkansas. My dad got called. Now at 88 he had a good excuse, but the paperwork never got called in.

I got called in a couple of years ago. I showed up and was told I had to call in every Wednesday for 10-12 weeks. I really mean to but my dad had a stroke and I didn't even find that piece of paper until about 2 years later.

 

[ccgirl]

Oh please. Well I'm glad you are happy with every rule, regulation, action and law in this great nation. Frankly, it just sounds as though you are nothing but a koolaid drinker. And those were not the kind of people who made this country what it is. Challenging and adapting are vital to growth.

Actually, I can't stand koolaid. Too much sugar for me. But, I do agree with most rules and regulations. I think they are there for reason. I think it would be complete chaos if they weren't there. Challenging and adapting are part of growth but, frankly, I think too many things are being challenged lately and that's why a lot of bad things are happening. Guess we can agree to disagree but saying I am not the kind of person that made this country what it is is absurd and could be construed as a personal and unnecessary attack.

 

[Michelle and crew]

My brother was called to Federal Grand Jury Duty a couple of years ago. He had to report to the state capital, where the grand jury was held, once per month for 2 YEARS! He was reimbursed for all of his expenses. He said it was very interesting, big time crime (intersate transport of stolen goods, kidnapping, money laundering, etc.) and would do it again in a heartbeat.

That would be fun. Either DH or I would enjoy that. I imagine that it is the op's worse nightmare, though. And when mine were tiny, even with a daytime sitter available, and my mom and my husband to care for them it would have been a huge ordeal. A bit of understanding goes a long way in life.

 

[Michelle and crew]

Actually, I can't stand koolaid. Too much sugar for me. But, I do agree with most rules and regulations. I think they are there for reason. I think it would be complete chaos if they weren't there. Challenging and adapting are part of growth but, frankly, I think too many things are being challenged lately and that's why a lot of bad things are happening. Guess we can agree to disagree but saying I am not the kind of person that made this country what it is is absurd and could be construed as a personal and unnecessary attack.

eh, about as absurd as telling people who can't find childcare they ought to move out of the country...

It does seem a bit snowflakey to assume that because someone thinks your point is wrong that they are attacking you...

 

[arihillfarm]

It's easy to judge when YOU had the perfect situation and someone there to care for your children. It's very easy to not see other people's perspectives, but I think some in this board should try to. Again, I would jump through the hoops to go into court if called for jury duty, but I can understand how it'd be a significant hardship

As for your comments on SAHDs, yes of course that's just as legitimate an excuse as a SAHM! Why wouldn't it be? They're still the primary care giver for a young child. My husband is leaving the military and will be being a SAHD for the next few years while he goes back to school. It will present just as many problems for him to go into jury duty as it would if it were me home instead. Of course, in my opinion it's easier now since both our kids are school aged, but childcare would still be pretty expensive. I don't see a problem with asking for compensation for that childcare, whether working or not. If you insist that parents serve on jury duty instead of deferring it for a few years, then in my opinion the court system needs to eat the cost of it.

Well, if this poster had not had the perfect situation, she would have been out of a job. You see, single parent military members (this goes for all, not just active duty) must have a family care plan on file whereby they list people willing to take their children and provide full-time care to them on short notice for as much as 18-24 months at a time. Without such a plan in place, the military member can be processed out and I've known a couple of people that happened to.

As a working single parent from time to time (thanks to deployments), I can tell you that my planning for child care and all possibilities related thereto, takes on a new meaning and urgency when you know there is only one responsible party for your children and you better believe I had 10 backup plans during those times. When DH is home, it's not as urgent. Also, now being a mostly SAHM, child care, when it is needed, is 10x more difficult to arrange and manage than it was when I was working 50+ hours a week. Even a simple thing like going to the dentist is more difficult. DH has to take off work and/or go with us whereas before, I'd just go over lunch during the workday, without a care knowing my kids were taken care of with no further action needed on my part.

-Astrid

 

[tlbwriter]

*Isn't one of the benefits of home schooling that it doesn't necessarily occur during "standard" school hours, that it can be SO flexible?

That's a good point. There are many valid (IMHO) reasons/excuses in this thread for jury duty being a hardship, but homeschooling?

**Relatively certain that being self-employed isn't a valid reason for the juror to be excused, so it would seem entirely reasonable that a judge wouldn't accept a juror's spouse being self-employed as the reason that juror couldn't serve.

I know I've heard of it being used - I think that's one that varies by judge and jurisdiction. Not just the fact that one is self-employed, but that it would cause a severe hardship to the juror and to others to shut down business for the length of the trial.