Jury duty should be selected from unemployment rolls

[Paulie]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Back in the days before hyper inflation, jurors got 5 times more money a day than was common for a skilled laborer. People actually made a living being professional jurors. For some reason, this was seen as an abuse, but it made for speedier trials as the lawyers all knew the jurors who were rational and would listen.

These days daily jury pay in Oregon is just 90 cents over the hourly minimum wage here in Oregon. that is contemptible.


I would prefer going back to paying Jurors a rational wage. $500 per day. You would get a better, more intelligent class of juror that way. These days the only folks who show up for jury duty are civil service and union types. People with a real life work very hard to avoid it.

 

[Mr Natural]

If your employer does not pay you while you're at jury duty, he's a cheap fuck and not worthy of your time and effort. Find another job.

 

[High_Gravity]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

But at the same time the unemployed are supposed to be out there looking for jobs, doing jury duty can hinder that process.

 

[Paulie]

If your employer does not pay you while you're at jury duty, he's a cheap fuck and not worthy of your time and effort. Find another job.

Yeah right, ok. In a huge economic downturn no less, an employer is going to pay you for not being at work. It's way more likely that the employer will help you get out of it so that he doesn't lose the production.

 

[Moonglow]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

nobody now is getting anymore than 20 weeks of unemployment benefits. The states have cut off the 99 week payments.

 

[Paulie]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

But at the same time the unemployed are supposed to be out there looking for jobs, doing jury duty can hinder that process.

I'd rather see an unemployed person miss a week of job hunting that they're probably not doing anyway, than a working person miss a week of pay.

 

[Moonglow]

jury duty where I live is 18 dollars a day and gas monies. Try not to get rich folks.

 

[Moonglow]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

But at the same time the unemployed are supposed to be out there looking for jobs, doing jury duty can hinder that process.

I'd rather see an unemployed person miss a week of job hunting that they're probably not doing anyway, than a working person miss a week of pay.

and we should be feeling what?

 

[Paulie]

But at the same time the unemployed are supposed to be out there looking for jobs, doing jury duty can hinder that process.

I'd rather see an unemployed person miss a week of job hunting that they're probably not doing anyway, than a working person miss a week of pay.

and we should be feeling what?

I don't know dude, feel whatever the fuck you want

 

[Baruch Menachem]

They are an important part of the process and they are shafted.


And if you have an employer who reimburses you for jury duty, you don't get the state jury pay.
If you want intelligent jurors, you should treat the jury pool better.

 

[High_Gravity]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

But at the same time the unemployed are supposed to be out there looking for jobs, doing jury duty can hinder that process.

I'd rather see an unemployed person miss a week of job hunting that they're probably not doing anyway, than a working person miss a week of pay.

I don't know I guess it depends on the person, when I was unemployed I looked for a job every damn day.

 

[imbalance]

Do they drug test jurors?

 

[Mr Natural]

Being a salaried, exempt employee, not only did I get paid for the two times in 20 years I had jury duty, my employer (a well known British information service) would not even take my jury duty check.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

Because jury duty is not about the needs, desires, and convenience of the jurors. It's about the rights of the accused, one of which is "a jury of your peers". That requires as much of a cross-section of society in the jury pool as possible.

 

[Lovebears65]

I really would not mind being a juror. I am a stay at home mom and my youngest is 16. It would not be a hardship to me and I would gladly take another person's job so they can do what they have to do. Anothing thing, I think it would be fascinated to sit on as a juror. I know for one I would have been that one hung jury so Casey Anthony would be sitting in jail!

 

[George Costanza]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

But at the same time the unemployed are supposed to be out there looking for jobs, doing jury duty can hinder that process.

I'd rather see an unemployed person miss a week of job hunting that they're probably not doing anyway, than a working person miss a week of pay.

That rarely happens. One of the main things the courts and the attorneys on the cases want to know is: are you paid by your employer for jury duty? If the answer is no, that potential juror is almost always excused, if not by the judge, then most certainly by one or the other of the attorneys, because no one wants someone on the jury who feels they are being screwed by having to be there. Jurors like that tend to make very bad decisions, often intentionally, just to get back at the system.

 

[George Costanza]

I really would not mind being a juror. I am a stay at home mom and my youngest is 16. It would not be a hardship to me and I would gladly take another person's job so they can do what they have to do. Anothing thing, I think it would be fascinated to sit on as a juror. I know for one I would have been that one hung jury so Casey Anthony would be sitting in jail!

But you would not be approaching jury duty with any kind of bias in favor of the prosecution, right?

 

[Trajan]

My brief argument is not only do they have the time to do it, but they are giving something back for all their benefits they've been getting, especially the ones receiving benefits beyond their original benefit determination.

Why pick from people who have a job still and desperately need to be at work? Why take a paycheck away from them when there's PLENTY of people to choose from on unemployment?

lets do it one better and use the welfare recipient rolls.....

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you crazy? Why would you target the unemployed!! I want smarter, more productive people on the jury, not the unemployed ones. I would side with the post on INCREASING the benefits associated with actually doing your duty.

Myself, I have only been called once and could not go because of my location. I was actually upset as I would be more than happy to do my duty as required.