Mandatory Jury Duty is Unconstitutional and it should be Outlawed

People selected by the government; paid by the government; whose identities are only known to the government will be called upon to decide a case where it is the government on one side and a citizen on the other. No problem there. That is, of course, if you have placed all of your faith in the government to make decisions for us. I personally like the idea that the government, before it can deprive a person of their freedom or even their very life, has to come before twelve randomly selected citizens and ask their permission. If even one says no, the government cannot proceed. You may like the freedom of having the government make all of your decisions, Polka, I have more faith in the people and like freedom too much to give it up.

So only those anxious to sit in judgment of other would serve; those anxious to serve this governmental function and to be called back cause they did such a good job the first time. Where does your willingness to give the government so much more power over your life come from?

What is absurd is likening serving on a jury, which most people do no more than once or twice in their lives for a day or two to slavery. What would you propose next, doing away with voting by citizens in favor of panels of "experts" to choose who will govern us? Why do you have such a problem with the idea of having the people who live in a society making decisions about that society?

Cause they are smart? Cause they understand that comparing serving on a jury to slavery is about as ridiculous a claim as they ever read here on the place to get smarter? Cause they understand that we all have obligations to our fellow citizens? Because they know that calling something unconstitutional does not make that so? Because they understand that what is and what is not constitutional is decided by the Supreme Court and that that Court would find our argument baseless?

Since jury service existed when the 13th Amendment was written and continued thereafter unchallenged by a single person until your article, your argument that when it was written the 13th Amendment was intended to outlaw Jury duty is, well, stupid.

No. It is not a fact. It is an opinion. A baseless one; one that stems from complete ignorance of the law, legal principles and how the constitution and its amendments came about. Do you really think that when they wrote the 13th Amendment its authors intended for it to prohibit jury duty? Just answer that question. If the answer is no, the only possible answer an intelligent person can give, then your argument collapses.

Nope, your idea completely sucks.

We don't need a bunch of judgmental self righteous queen bees sitting on volunteer juries because that's exactly what it would turn into.

End of Story.

If you don't like the United States of America's long standing traditions and the fundamental principles behind our rule of law, then get the @!$%# out.

It's not forced servitude. There are ways to get out of jury duty if you're that determined. Say the wrong things. Make both the prosecution, and counsel not want you on the jury.

Jury duty is a duty to country and fellow countrymen/countrywomen.

It is forced servitude. That is simply a fact.

No. There is some token payment which doesn't make it servitude. And there are may reasons one can use to be excused.

I twice replied to jury duty summons in the following manner.

"It would be my pleasure to serve. However, I feel it my duty to inform you that I may exercise my right to challenge a law in lieu of judging a defendant. Especially those laws in which the state has appointed itself the surrogate victim. For any crime to have been committed there must have been real harm inflicted upon a person or a person's property. I am aware that as a juror I have the right, if not the duty, to bring the fairness of the law to question!"

I have not received another summons in nearly two decades!

I have not received another summons in nearly two decades!

You don't have any right to challenge a law unless you are accused of breaking one. The laws are made by the state or federal legislature.

And not receiving a summons has nothing to do with your note. Although I'm sure you believe they were afraid to call you. I have never been called to jury duty and I have been eligible for many years. My spouse has been called once in 35 years. So don't delude your self into thinking you effected anything.

I've been on notice for jury duty once, but no trials came up during that 6 months. One almost did, but it settled out of court the day before I was supposed to go in for jury selection.

I have no problem with jury duty because I believe we are all entitled to a fair trial. You never know when you might become the defendant. The pay issue is trumped by duty to fellow citizens, but better compensation for the time put in would be a good thing overall.

actually it's pretty simple.....just say regardless of the person's guilt or innocence you're gonna vote guilty regardless just for them making you waste your time to be there.

Go ahead, try and bullsh!t the court during jury selection, I'm sure they've never had any one try that on them before and don't know exactly how to do with geniuses such as yourself. :-)

Go ahead, try and bullsh!t the court during jury selection, I'm sure they've never had any one try that on them before and don't know exactly how to do with geniuses such as yourself. :-)

No need to cry. It doesn't matter if they have heard it before neither side will want you. If the state won't pass legislation that makes employers pay for employees or raise the jury pay they why should I be so willing to be ready to do jury duty. That's why a large percentage of jurors are government employees because the government pays them while serving. $60 a day or guaranteed income from employer and people would be more than willing to serve.

It doesn't matter if they have heard it before neither side will want you.

Overconfidence and a game of chicken don't usually end very well together.

You believe the defense or prosecution will still want to select me as a juror after I tell them I will pick which ever verdict gets me home the fastest? That's just not going to happen. Times are tough I'm looking out for myself.

A game of chicken involves risk, I'm not risking anything either I get chosen or I don't.

I'm sure you believe you can outsmart them, but you should also know that you are definitely not the first person who's tried something like that. These people aren't fools. Do you really think they'd play along?

It should be $15 per hour.

Rhazes, saying something like that during jury screening will likely earn you a contempt charge, though you won't end up serving on a jury.

Overall, the pay should be reasonable, though something to remember, the more they pay a juror, the more you pay in taxes-money has to come from somewhere. I agree $5-$15 per day is ridiculous.

Overall, jury duty is not the same thing as forced servitude-that's an argument that would never make it to the first apellate level, but hey, if you've got the time on your hands, give it a try, Polka.

actually it's pretty simple.....just say regardless of the person's guilt or innocence you're gonna vote guilty regardless just for them making you waste your time to be there.

Have a great time in jail. That would be contempt of court.

The $15 per day did not cover parking and gas. When your living pay check to paycheck two weeks of no pay adds a lot of stress.

And that's a valid excuse.

Rhazes, saying something like that during jury screening will likely earn you a contempt charge, though you won't end up serving on a jury.

Possibly, there a couple cases like that. One could always say they are a member of the FIJA, if the Judge doesn't outright dismiss you the prosecution will challenge you. People shouldn't be held in contempt for being honest. Its just another sign that the government has overreached to far.

Judges and prosecutors hate informed jurors being a member on the Fully Informed Jury Association and letting them know is probably the easiest and fastest way out of jury duty. That's why the Department of Homeland Security has been arresting FIJA members who hand out free literature to anyone who chooses to come up to them and take it. Its always thrown out but arresting people and throwing them is a jail is a tactic used by tyrants.. The Feds don't want jurors to know if they don't agree with laws like marijuana laws they can nullify it and the courts can't punish them for it.

And that's a valid excuse.

In some states it is. The judge told me my financial reason was not enough to dismiss me. However, every person in college was dismissed, everyone with a PDA was dismissed, and every business owner was let go.

That's why a large percentage of jurors are government employees because the government pays them while serving. $60 a day or guaranteed income from employer and people would be more than willing to serve.

Most decent companies will pay you for jury duty.

If I ever get summoned again, when the judge talks to me I will say I am not a good juror and If I was on trial I would not want someone like me in the jury. When he asks Why? I'll say because I will decide which ever way gets me back to work the fastest. I doubt I'll get picked at that point.

People have gone to jail for contempt of court for less.

People have gone to jail for contempt of court for less.

That's because we live in a police state.

You crack me up Rhazes

While I have been threatened with contempt of court during one of those voir dire sessions there are plenty of ways to avoid being seated on a jury.

The first time they asked me to be sworn in I refused. The judge questioned me for 5 minutes then dismissed. I noticed the next time I came to court jury duty they didn't ask if we were willing to follow the law as instructed by the judge.

My answer, "tell me what the law is and I'll tell you if I'm willing to follow it."

How about where they ask you if you can remain impartial over and over again. I don't even need to lie about that.

The case of counterfeiting money being passed at Walmart. To the prosecutor, "The problem you have here is that you have no victim."

The civil case against the repeat sex offender they wanted to lock up in the mental ward. "No problem, go right ahead, it would be shame if they didn't lock this guy up for life"

There's an honest out in every case if you look hard enough.

In the Anthony case, it's a rare event that 12 jurors so ill suited to serve converge on the same case

Rare indeed. Prosecuters, defense attorneys, jury consultants and the judge all aloowed this to happen. What a coincidence everyone got it wrong.

A professional jury system would turn into a system like the "professional" parole boards. I have little confidence in groups that are given the ability to wield power over our lives based more on political cronyism than on proof of their great moral fiber. For all its faults, I'll stay with the jury of my peers. Interesting concept though.

According to the Supreme Court, neither are slavery.

The Supreme Court, under US law, can't be wrong. They interpret what the Constitution says.

Since that would conflict with the Sixth Amendment, that wouldn't work.

The Supreme Court, under US law, can't be wrong. They interpret what the Constitution says.

So from 1896 to 1954 "seperate, but equal" was not wrong? Hey, the Supreme Court said it was okay, so it must be right.

Between 1896 and 1954, they were right. In our form of government, the Supreme Court decides what the constitution means. The final say, however, is always with the people who can amend the constitution. Until that happens, however, the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Joshua, the Supreme Court was morally wrong, but legally right.

The Supreme Court, under US law, can't be wrong. They interpret what the Constitution says

It's amazing that all the experts on the Constitution posting here don't know that.

Polka, your argument really boils down to the same fallacious argument some try to make about why they shouldn't have to pay taxes.

CommisarCain

The Supreme Court, under US law, can't be wrong.

Dred Scott. Booyah!

Scuba, they were legally right. SCOTUS is legally right by virtue of being SCOTUS.

Polka I dont think so , professional jurors , would as gator pointed out have a conflict of interest since their paycheck ultimately comes from the government , too many ways to corrupt that type of system , i would much more prefer to trust 12 citizen jurors , compensated as they are , not saying the compensation shouldnt be raised so that its not aloss to the jurour , but not so much that it can earn a living . when government controls too many elements , the government gets what it wants , what the government doesnt control , usually there does end up being justice , whether we agree with the verdict or not , me i am not that trusting of government especially with the corruption that is already in place and already presume to have more authority than they already have , with like minded and educated citizens , ones that have to live under those same laws and most likely have the same understanding as you , your chances of an aquittal are better than having to face a panel comprised of all professionals .

The system isnt going to change , the laws will not be changed , like it or not , jury duty is an obligation of citizenship , want to get out of it , find out what disqualifies someone from having to serve , then do one of those disqualifying things , but be careful you dont jepardize one of those other rights you think are free , just for being , your right to vote is not guarenteed if you become convicted of a crime , nor is your right to freely travel or speech , or to own a firearm , they are all able to be removed by due process through the courts with existing laws set down by society .

on this matter your pissing into the wind , as your own polls point out .

compensated as they are , not saying the compensation shouldnt be raised so that its not aloss to the jurour , but not so much that it can earn a living

Its not earning a living, the jurors will be there for 1 trial and probably not get called back for at least a year, Its been 9 years since I served. The pay needs to be raised much higher. Some counties are paying $6, some $15 neither is enough. There are a few places that raised to $40 a day and participation sky rocketed. I think it should be at least $60.

Last time I was called for Jury Duty (BTW, my job continues my pay while on jury duty), I was told as we were dismissed that you will not be called again for jury duty for at least 3 years.

Uh, it already is a felony to bribe a juror? That little fact escape your thorough analysis of the jury system?

Well, then, I suppose you should not have made such a blatantly incorrect statement in response to a comment on the problems with your brilliant idea to do away with one of the bedrock principles of Anglo-American law, a principal 900 years in the making.

Perhaps I'm over simplifying, but isn't Polka's main point INVOLUNTARY service and since loss of income is a major reason for wishing to avoid jury duty, why not pay (at least) the minium wage for the hours involved. Voluntary jury duty could be a godsend for the unemployed. I would hate to have my fate determined by a group who arrived angry and were (preoccupied with all the unplanned out of pocket expense (not to mention the annoyed co-workers back at your job who had to cover for absence).

Uh, it already is a felony to bribe a juror? That little fact escape your thorough analysis of the jury system?

Yes, it is already a felony. I guy I did work for years ago just found that out the hard way. If convicted of that charge (he's already been found guilty in the case he tried bribing the jury), he'll never get to run for office again. Thank God.

Geezer-guy,

Maybe they could set up cots and turn the courthouse into a homeless shelter, so the jurors wouldn't have so far to go to get to work!

Uh no, thank you. If I'm on the hot seat, I want a jury of my peers. Jury Duty is a civic duty and is part of your responsibilities as a member of society, whether you think so or not.

gatoralum, that is not the focus of my article. My focus is the idea that the jury system should be rebuilt so it abolishes forced servitude and replaces it with a professional/volunteer or an all volunteer jury system.

Did you happen to notice that no one is agreeing with you?

I would have thought that more would be in favor of advancing freedom.

Except your idea does the opposite by limiting jurors to those 'qualified' under some politician's arbitrary qualifications.

The jury system is about Justice, not Law. Laws are often vague and open to interpretation. Under the letter of the law someone may be guilty, under the 'spirit' of the law, someone may not. Juries made up of the general public are the last line of defense in the courts between the state and the people. When you start government regulation of juries you are REGRESSING freedom, not advancing it.

We have the civic duty to perform jury duty because we all may stand accused someday so it is up to all of us to ensure that Justice is served for each other. By public trial they mean not only viewable by the public, but decided by the public, which we ALL are.

The accused have the right to have YOU decide their guilt.

... we have 235 years of case law that covers lots of stuff.

That "peer" idea isn't even in the Constitution.

Seriously, read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Really. If your going to write an article that addresses the constitutionality of an issue, you should know what you are talking about.

We are guaranteed the right to a trial by our peers, not government employees

That's pretty much what is now, government employees and seniors make up the most of people who show up for jury duty, because they still get paid while serving.

Counties that pay $40+ a day have high participation.

If you have professional jurors, they will be inclined to be part of the team, believe the prosecutors would not bring a case for the wrong reasons, law enforcement officers are all true and honest. Seems fair until you are the innocent one charged with a crime. Many posting here are the same ones always posting against big government and government employees. You want government employees determining your fate? The times I have been on jury duty, the jurors were really from all walks of life, not just government employees and retired people.

Yes, jury duty is a sacrifice, but how much really? Long trials are rare. I have never participated in one that took over a day.

If you have professional jurors, they will be inclined to be part of the team,

I don't agree with professional juries. I think jurors need to be paid more and the participation will greatly increase which is better for the system anyways because juries will have some diversity.

Yes, jury duty is a sacrifice, but how much really? Long trials are rare. I have never participated in one that took over a day.

I served once and it was 2 weeks long. It put me behind on my bills for a few months. I'm not sure how rare they are average jury duty is 2 to 5 days. No matter how rare they are they still happen and I think its asking to much.

Mike,

Well stated. What about promotion opportunities in a professional jury pool? If you are the foreman, you should be paid more, right? Who makes the decision? What will a juror do to lobby that person?

Sorry, I'd be happier with 12 people that had never met each other before coming ot a decision.

Mike of the North--

Good for you!

'You and your fellow jurors showed common sense in that case. What you did was "jury nullification"--something California has criminalised, but which has a history going back for hundreds of years.

As I said I sat in on the trial, I was in court of other reasons and that case was up before the one I was involved in, I wasn't on the jury. I do however agree with their decision and without the right to decide at will there is no point in a jury trial.

Liberty is not free. Sacrifices must be made to ensure it. This means that, in order to keep justice in the hands of the people, the people must be willing to serve as jurors. If the citizenry really wants a law gone, we can undo it. If we really wanted the marijuana prohibition over, we could stop convicting people charged with having it. Freedom rests on the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the bullet box.

It is actually free.

Actually it isn't.

Your idea that someone else "long ago" paid the price for your freedom therefore it's not right that you may be asked to carry a burden at some point to ensure that freedom continues to exist is so @!$%#ing unpatriotic and selfish I don't know what else to say to you.

Free? Do you pay taxes?

No, it isn't. You said free. That is incorrect. You need to understand the idea of a social contract. Nothing in the world is truly free.

So you have no driver's license, car insurance either, and your vehicle is not registered?

You don't pay taxes?

You thumb your nose at rules and laws you disagree with but want the protections provided by the ones you do agree with.

You don't HAVE to serve on a jury. You don't HAVE to show up. You don't have to do a damn thing. You do HAVE to deal with the consequences. Grown-ups understand that there is a price to pay for liberty every day, in one way or another. Someday the shoe might be on the other foot.

Case Anthony's escape is the price we pay for the rights of the accused. That price is well worth it.

Until recently we conscripted to serve in the military. We should have continued the practice. Angry parents might have saved us two wars.

"Would people use that same excuse if the government openly tried to conscript people for large scale construction of state projects and punished people that refused?"
Because our juries are composed of our peers, not government paid professionals, we could stop them from carrying out those punishments.

But it is the same concept. Construction workers held against their will would be our "peers" too. Why use one injustice to rationalize another?

They would be our peers. And as such, we could simply declare them not guilty.

I doubt that they would be convicted.

Polka , your young enough that you mostlikely either dont know about this or covered it in history class and it got glossed over , but just what you say was tried back during the Vietnam war , people disagreeing and leaving the country . Well they had some choices to make over an above , just leaving , they had to decide where they would go , so far every nation has on the books laws that allow for conscription some even still do mandatory conscription within certain perameters , though they also allow for those that wish to make the military a career volentarily , much like the system we have at present . Now , if one wishes to dodge the draft , which is allowed by law , an individual decides to leave , then along with that goes the right to vote , the right to participate in the political process it can even affect the ability to get a job ,

back in the 70s , long before you were even a gleam in your daddys eye , a President gave a Presidential pardon to those that ran out on the draft by leaving the country . those folks could come back if they wished to risk capture and prosecution before this pardon was given , their choice . but they surrendered all the rights as citizens when they left , the Government has no obligation to uphold their rights once they leave the country , those rights you enjoy , and it appears you think you have no cost in paying for , are not protected outside the borders of this nation .

I mentioned the pardon because though that president had other issues to contend with , this added to his re election bid , and he ended up a one term president , did his pardon influence people? most likely, did it contribute to his re election bid failing? well thats debatable , the president was Jimmy Carter . Now think about this carefully , if you leave the country because of a draft , you leave all your rights behind , you may have some of them where ever you decide to go , but you wont have the protection of the constitution , you will have to live under the rules and laws of the society where ever you end up and be subject to their laws , your citizenship in this nation , is very difficult , to loose , but , its also very easy to give up , but there is aprocess that your citizenship can be stripped from you without your consent as dictated by law .

You really want to risk some future president will go against public opinion and grant amnesty and a pardon ? Do you want to risk conviction in the court of public opinion and have to live the life of an outcast and be discriminated against? Think that cant happen? ask someone that has gotten a bad conduct discharge just how much it has affected their lives and rights , people are free to associate with those they wish to , and no law can or will stop someone from thinking a draft dodger deserves anything more than contempt , even if they live aperfect life the rest of their lives , they will be subject to not getting hired , they will be subject to ostrization from those that didnt run away , even if those individuals can understand why it was done .

Polka , in that you and those like you have a lot of choices to make , choose wisely , because those choices also carry consequenses .Some you definitely wont like that the government has absolutely no control over .

Actually Polka , you have it abit turned around , the veterans that served were seen as given the @!$%#ty end of the stick , but they slowly got their due , and stood by returning vets from following conflicts so that those returning vets were not treated as they were which I am a beneficiary of their actions and it is my obligation to those that have served after to insure the same exact thing as those vets did for me , if that means i go to jail for smacking some asshat for spitting on a soldier because they disagree with a war , so be it , even though the individual is exersizing a right of free expression , Ill simply be exersizing my right of free expression by stomping a mudhole in that individual as well , ill serve jail time , but some prices are worth paying .

actually draft dodgers that returned got treated worse , in the ability to find work , though its taken time they now arent as discriminated against as badly , I can say personally i have nothing but contempt for them , and wouldnt hire one to work for me .

Funny you mention having to serve and the likelyhood of you having to , selective service registration is still on the books for all males once they turn 18 , failure to do so affects their ability do do some things , such as get governmet student loans , and a few other things as well, would you as a female have to register? not right now , because the law applies to males , Now , lets look at somethinghere , theres a call to re introduce the equal rights amendment , if that passed , women as well could be subject to registration , which is allowed by law , which is allowed by the constitution in congresses authority to create laws . Might want to think about some of that as well.

Polka14

"The Vietnam veterans were probably hated more then the draft dodgers in the 1970's."

It is true the Vietnam Vets were not very popular in the '70s. That is why, even to this day, we make a point of saying: "Welcome home, brother" when we see a vet.

Question: would you request a jury trial if you were in court on charges?

Krasna Ludec, USAF MAC 1967-70 Vietnam Vet

Mark in Wyoming,

You are totally correct. And thank you for standing up for those that serve or who have served. I am one of those. I'll stand by and protect Polka's right to burn a flag or whatever, because it is us who protect those rights, even if I think that person's actions reflect the southbound end of a nothbound donkey.

The Vietnam veterans were probably hated more then the draft dodgers in the 1970's.

What is your point? Is it your contention that veterans were hated because they were drafted?

It couldn't be because they were involved in a very unpopular war and the public and anti-war protestors took it out on the soldiers? The wars now aren't 'popular', but I don't know anyone who would dream of spitting on a soldier - literally or figuratively, harassing one or name-calling ( baby-killer was popular after Vietnam).

Polka , you claim to be 24 yrs of age , selective service registration affects those between the ages of 18 and 45 , so nope your not to old to be caught up in a draft if they reinstate one , here are some criteria that would make you eligible , single , no kids , no education deferment ( which you have to apply for and be granted ), if you get an education deferment , you must maintain a specific grade point average , and of course fall into certain health specifications another thing that could exempt one from a draft is employment , would you be more valuable working your job or in the service ? ,

so nope the only thing keeping you out of a draft would be your gender , which a new push for ERA could make you very eligible for a draft . Which I am for the ERA , but with it comes the consequenses and obligations as well , everything men are subject to , so too shall be women . no gender bias allowed .

Polka14

You should read about the Hutterites in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, during WWI.

Polka14

"That was an unfortunate injustice."

That's putting it mildly. Two of the young men died. Their tombstones indicate they were martyrs.

Yes i do.

Once in the 30+ years I've been 'over 18'. Not what one would call onerous.

I have never in my life been called and my spouse once in 35 years that she has been eligible.

Being called for jury duty is not being punished. If you were accused of a crime do want those who are there as your jury to feel they are being punished too? That's silly. We are all contributing to our society. I would hope I could find a jury of my peers, so I won't deny someone else that. I"ve been called three times. Had to show UP twice. The 2nd time I had a young child so I had a valid reason not to go. I was never picked, I didn't have to make up stuff, nothing. Sure it was mildly inconvenient and I wasn't excited about it but it is the cost of living in a country that has a decent judicial system. I'd rather that than rely on some Judge alone to be fair with me.

We already have a small pool from which to choose jurors if you think about it. Considering how many of our eliglbe citizens actually vote. No, fewer jurors would be disasterous and lead to less fair judicial system.

Then leave.

Thinking in absolutes must be fun, but it is not reality. You seem to think that the world and specifically this country owes you everything you think you deserve but you shouldn't have to contribute anything back. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, immature or just silly.

You know, North Korea does not have juries.

If you're willing to waive your right to a jury trial I'd be willing to waive your duty to serve on a jury if so called. The reality is though, our rights are not OPT IN. Rights have responsibilities and since we all have the right to a jury trial, we all have the responsibility to serve jury duty.

polka actually the legitimacy is in the laws laid down and created constitutionally. the law says if you fail to appear when called , you can be fined , or incarcerated , i would have no problem convicting anyone that has presented the case you have , with the recommendation that the incarceration period be 366 days , 1 day over the yr mark which in most states makes the crime a felony , so once convicted , be you incarserated or have it reduced to time served , and maybe some good behaviour time , the yr and a day still stands and you loose the right to vote , to own a firerm , if you feel you have no obligation but want to enjoy the perks , they WILL cost you whether you think they should or not , and judging from most of the reponses here , and your own polls , i doubt it would be hard to fill a jury of like minded people that have no problem educating you with consequenses , about social obligations and contracts both written and unwritten . dont think the rules apply to you , fine , take your chances , but dont be crying when , you loose. and you would loose.youve already lost here and it wasnt pretty to watch.

Just cause you, all by your lone self, want to call jury duty slavery does not mean that that is true. It is not true. It is about the most insipid thing I have read on here. No personal offense intended, but your argument combines the silliest idea with the weakest, most nonsencial arguments based on a complete lack of understanding of the constitution and the history of the jury system.

Well it doesn't matter. If the government reinstates that draft and pushes for a universal "obligation" then I'm moving to Europe. I will never work for the government against my will.

Let me help you pack.

The US doesn't owe me anything except freedom and freedom doesn't cost anything. And I should be able to contribute to the nation if I desire to do so and I shouldn't be forced against my will to give anything; I certainly shouldn't be forced against my will to work for the government.

You should have stopped at the first 6 words. Feel entitled much? Your grasp of the Constitution, law, slavery, the justice system, the jury system, conceptual relationships, "forced servitude", is hopelessly weak.

Your rights end where mine begins. I don't want to serve and I don't want the government to think it has a legitimate right to force me to if it wants.

It would appear you have and enjoy the rights you want and like, the obligations...not so much.

It would be unfortunate that so many people would imprison people like me for exercising our rights to oppose forced servitude. Enjoy your slavery then.

It's not unfortunate. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

It is perfectly clear; perfectly clear that it does not apply to thing like jury duty, compulsory school attendance; being drafted into the military. In order for you to be right, you would have to conclude that when the author of the 13th amendment proposed it and when the congress and the states passed it, they all intended that it would outlaw jury duty. Do you really think that is what they intended? Or do you think that they intended to outlaw the institution of slavery over which the bloodiest conflict in our history was fought?

So, what those who wrote and passed the 13th amendment meant when they used the term involuntary servitude does not matter at all. Somehow, for the last 150 years, all of lawyers and judges; state and federal, just were too stupid to realize that the 13th amendment made jury service unconstitutional. Thank god you came along and figured this out for us. We can finally be free from the possibility that we might one day be summoned for jury duty during which we just might be asked to spend a day or two performing a task central to our criminal justice system. The chains of oppression will finally be lifted. Free at last, free at last, thank Polka almighty, we are free at last.

Yes, forced against our will. Just like we are forced arbitrarily, to stop at an intersection by that sign of oppression the "STOP SIGN." This infringes on our freedom to go. Why should we have to stop and take our turn? Are we children? If I have the bigger car, I should be able to proceed without stopping. Any government imposed requirement that I stop infringes on my freedom. Or those fascists in the air traffic controll towers, telling pilots where they can fly, how high they can fly, when the can land and take off. Another freedom lost to the government. We truly live in a police state. You cannot even drive down a highway without being reminded how much of our lives are controlled by the government each time we see a speed limit sign.

Your rights end where mine begins.

Since there is a constitutional right to a public jury trial, I reserve the right to have a jury consisting of the PUBLIC. Your right to NOT serve in the public interest END where MINE begins since there is no constitutional right NOT to.

I was not mocking freedom, I was mocking this insipid article.

Spike...lol...this article is quite funny to say the least....lol

So should we have troops sent to peoples' homes and march them to the courthouse with fixed bayonets?

Enforcing court orders is the duty of the local Sheriff and his Deputies.

I don't want to serve and I don't want the government to think it has a legitimate right to force me to if it wants.

The government doesn't think is has the right to compel you to Jury duty, Polka, It has the right. A judge can put you in Jail for contempt if you refuse to serve.

I dislike the GOP more then can say. That doesn't I wouldn't shoot a rifle empty if I was all that stood between an invading army and the block I live on. My survival would be irrelevent at that point.

For every freedom we have there are responsibilities.

Freedom includes the freedom to contribute to the state or not.

Decisions have consequences, some good and some bad.

Nobody is saying you can't choose, they're simply telling you what will happen if you do decide on a particular course of action.

Nothing is stopping me from robbing a bank, but there are consequences if I do.

Actually it does. It raises the spectre of professional juries. The system exists as it is for a reason and not for someone to get off their control issue jollies.

Quite simply the system was put in place to avoid abuse by the government.

By those more succinct than I.

"America’s founders recognized that trial by jury in both criminal and civil cases offered unparalleled protection for their hard-won freedoms, both individually and collectively. In fact, the right to trial by jury was so important that the founders made it part of the supreme law of the land. Article III of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”
Two years before the first musket was fired in America’s War for Independence, a Boston lawyer wrote: “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

Perhaps the lawyer was being overly dramatic in describing the protective power of trial by jury; perhaps not. In any event, that lawyer—a passionate patriot by the name of John Adams—was not alone in his belief that trial by jury was a powerful defense against tyranny.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” a Virginia lawyer wrote around the same time. His name was Thomas Jefferson.

In June of 1776, delegates of the Virginia Convention adopted a declaration of rights that included the following statement: “…In controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.”

Less than one month later, representatives of all 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence, which cited “depriving us in many cases of the right to trial by jury” – a right granted to every British subject by Magna Carta in 1215 – as one of the chief reasons for breaking with the King and Mother England. At the time, Americans accused of crimes against the crown were being held indefinitely on prison ships and/or deported to England to stand trial. Many were never heard from again.

These and other royal abuses of power were front and center when the founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia to draft a national Constitution in 1787. They believed that the combination of an independent judiciary and the right to be tried by a jury of peers would protect Americans from whatever form tyranny might take.

“The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [Constitutional] Convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist essays describing the proposed new constitution.

So important to them was the right to trial by jury that the founders made it part of the supreme law of the land. Article III of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”

In spite of the blanket guarantee, many patriots objected to the vagueness of the provision and its silence on the subject of civil disputes. When the draft of the Constitution was debated, opponents demanded that the jury trial right be spelled out in more detail.

One of the most outspoken proponents of a Bill of Rights was George Mason, the author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights. In a debate on ratification of the Constitution, he said, “How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone — not sufficiently secured in criminal — this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.”

Public opinion so strongly favored a Bill of Rights that the first congress proposed 12 constitutional amendments to the state legislature in 1789. Two of the ten amendments ratified spelled out jury trial rights not specifically described in the articles of the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment extended the rights of criminal defendants to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, the ability to confront adverse witnesses and to the aid of counsel.

The Seventh Amendment extended the right to a jury trial to civil cases. In civil cases, the person bringing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) seeks money damages or a court order preventing the person being sued (the defendant) from engaging in certain conduct. To win, the plaintiff must prove his or her case by “a preponderance of the evidence,” that is by over 50 percent of the proof.

The text of the Seventh Amendment reads: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Clearly, our founding fathers recognized the value of trial by jury in both criminal and civil cases offered unparalleled protection for our freedoms, both individually and collectively.

Justice for all is a beautiful thing. This just wouldn’t be America without it."

How can you be sure that a volunteer is volunteering for the right reasons? Or that no duplicity is taking place?

A volunteer jury can be questioned before trial and volunteers wouldn't be able to choose the trial that they would be present in.

Because someone going in for the wrong reasons probably wouldn't lie or anything...

Also it's easier to buy a professional jury Polka.

What wrong reasons?

A predecided position in which a person has already decided the other person is guilty or not. Just for example.

It should be against the law for juries to gain information to create a position before a trial.

But that would infringe on their freedoms!

Juries must be unbiased and that would be determined at pre-trial questioning for all volunteers.

And people with control issues would lie so they could get on the jury.

It's already illegal...

I don't think you understood my comment.

There are more ways to "gain information" on a trial than what the people in the courtroom tell you. There's a reason jurors aren't supposed to watch the news or read anything about cases they're working on.

So make it punishable by prison sentence for failure to notify the court in regards to anything that would limit impartiality or for purposely entering a jury to try a case with personal ties to the people involved or the case itself.

Uh...do you even know anything about or system? (Besides, what jury is going to convict another juror of doing the same thing they probably are?)

Go google Voir Dire. You need to understand something before you try to tell everyone they're wrong.

You need to understand something before you try to tell everyone they're wrong.

Stated perfectly.