ian-mstm

Sadly, most people would rather live in their hole than accept the concept that they could make a difference in someone else's life. But perhaps you're right... perhaps that's too idealistic for this crowd.

Ian

Bob

perhaps you don't have a problem with spending $40 a day on parking and losing a weeks pay while only getting paid $60 for the privilege.

ian-mstm

Actually, no... I don't. While I'm neither retired nor "well above the breadline", serving on a jury is not only the responsible thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

Well... 'nuff said on this topic!

Ian

kimilseung

It might be a desirable thing to do, but it strikes me as ludicrous to criticize those that try to avoid it. If the system does not value participation, it should be no surprise that many of those called upon to be involved do not value it either.
I wander what the demographic of those involved is. It seems set up to include the retired, the affluent who chose to be involved and those with out the nous to get themselves out of it.
If the loss of money was not enough there is the fear of loss of job; being called multiple times in a short time frame seems common too.

If it is desirable for all to be involved, then the hardship for involvement should be a shared one, that requires fair compensation from the common purse.

ian-mstm

I suppose that depends on how you define "value". I believe the system does value participation... but participation based on one's sense of civic duty... not based on "what's in it for me".


Don't you see... that where the argument falls to pieces. How do you determine what's fair? If it's based on someone's income, then Juror 1 might be paid $15 a day while Juror 2 might be paid $750... it would depend on how much they'd otherwise earn on a daily basis. I can tell you, Juror 1 is going to be pretty PO'd that Juror 2 is making 50x more than him for doing the same job on the jury! Okay... so that's not a good solution. How about a specific amount then... say $100 a day. That's great for Juror 1, but Juror 2 is going to be pretty PO'd that his time is so undervalued. So, you tell me... what's fair - and how do you make that determination?

In a nutshell, you can't... there is no financial compensation that can be truly fair - so the only thing that can be done is to appeal to people's sense of civic duty. If that's not enough, well... I just don't know what to say!

Ian

lyonsden1193

I think that Civic Duty comes in many forms. I, as previously stated, think that the jury service system in our area is bad.. but I have no hesitation helping people in other ways ...and have done so.

Malashaan

Just to add a different perspective on the employer thing, mine very strongly encourages anyone called to take part. I got given a "jury service' policy document when I started which included the phrase "the company expects all employees to take part in jury service if called."

Bob

Someone on $750 a day is likely working for a place that will pay for them to be on jury duty so it is unlikely to be a hardship.

Someone on minimum wage who will lose a few days worth of pay, possibly a job, will be much harder hit.

You might think spending $40 a day on parking is trivial, but when you're only being compensated $60 for a weeks service, that's a large whack of change to me. The least that could be done is have the parking validated, but they stopped doing that years ago around here.

Bob

same with where the missus works....they don't pay for the time out though, unless you take a PTO day.

They only paid her when she was a witness, but they didn't comp any other expenses like parking.

lyonsden1193

I think the quote above is probably what sets a lot of people going.

"The company expects"

I think a lot of people like to be asked to give up something and not told.
Especially when the people doing the telling don't want to participate in the 'civic duty thing' by helping mitigate the costs. and by costs I don't necessarily just refer to money. What Bob's wife had to do was disgusting..if the employer expects then the employer should allocate time if nothing else.

In my wife's case when she was called we found out that she would have to climb multiple amounts of stairs (no elevator access in certain areas of an old building),Get secondary search because of hip and knee replacement, park about 4 blocks away. (parking in downtown Memphis is weird) all while waiting for second knee replacement surgery. When she asked for a deferral till after surgery she was told no. Oh ...and after a week the procecutor plea bargained it!

Rete

I know this is a British Expat site and the vast majority are Brits (duh!) but why does everyone come down so heavily in the negative when it comes to jury serving?

It is a privilege to serve, a duty to serve and frankly, I would want someone of my ilk to serve on my jury if I were ever in the position to need one.

Remember a jury is to be made up of your peers. My peers are not retired people, the wealthy and privileged nor the welfare recipient with 10 kids.

How does it work in the UK? Are you compensated for your service in the same amount as your earnings? Are you picked up by private car and/or reimbursed for cab fare or parking fees? Do they feed you lunch and give you coffee breaks? Does your servicing come with a guarantee that your job will not be taken from you? I've lived a sheltered life for 63 years and never heard of anyone losing their job because of having to serve. Are all court houses handicapped equipped in the UK?

Lyonsden, I'm sorry your wife was inconvenienced by serving on jury duty and that special consideration was not accorded her for her "disability". I do hope that if you were to become a US Citizen, that you are never called to jury duty.

Sally Redux

If you don't know how it works in the UK, why are you sounding off about it?

Quite unneccesary to put "disability".

Rete

Not sounding off but stating my opinion and asking questions. There is a difference, Sally.

Others on this thread have come down hot and heavy on jury serving, citing hardships financially and lyonsden about his wife's "disability" which is not a disability she was born with and/or is not curable. It is a pain to deal with until surgery but it is not a disability. A disability is my hearing loss which is incurable and something I have had since infancy. Worn out knees and/or hips is not a disability.

Why do you not know how it works in the UK? You are British are you not? You have never served on a jury, known anyone who has, or have never had any interest in learning about your judicial system?

Sally Redux

You're 'stating your opinion' by sarcastically referring to the UK provisions, which you admit you don't have any knowledge of.

Of course a person can be temporarily disabled and shouldn't have to put their health at risk to serve.

Rete

I wasn't sarcastic. You are reading something that isn't there. The posters on the thread are mouthing off about the financial cost of parking if you have jury duty. They are mouthing off about the court house because it does not have an elevator, escalator or whateveer so that their spouse does not have to climb stairs even though the spouse can apparently walk. They are mouthing off that the monies given for serving are not equal to money they make on the job. They are stating that only the wealthy and the poor or the retired should serve because they are the only ones who can afford to.

So I am asking about the UK's jury system. I'm not a Brit. Since they are going on the negatives of the US system in their opinion, I am asking is it so different from the UK and I gave examples of the what might be the differences and asking if that is correct.

Now get off me case lady