Unemployed and the retired should serve jury duty

gomez1012 wrote:+1

I dump my jury duty notices

hardcorebee24 wrote:
In BK they send the Marshalls after you if you do that. I know people in Queens, Manhattan, Long Island etc that throw their notices away with no real recourse. For some reason in BK they come after you.

gomez1012 wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:
In BK they send the Marshalls after you if you do that. I know people in Queens, Manhattan, Long Island etc that throw their notices away with no real recourse. For some reason in BK they come after you.

Damn that sucks!

I used to put full time student and send them back, then just started trashing them lol

hardcorebee24 wrote:
My father in law was dumping them for years and two years ago they got his ass. He now has to serve everytime he's summoned. If you go once and get picked like I have there is a four year berevement. In Jersey it's tied to your license at the DMV so if you don't respond they suspend your shit.

Tobe wrote:I hear where you're coming from on that, but to me it sort of violates the notion of a "jury of your peers" if you have to be judged by only the umemployed or retired. Not exactly the best pool to choose from for certain cases. I've never been summoned, thankfully.

Tobe wrote:I hear where you're coming from on that, but to me it sort of violates the notion of a "jury of your peers" if you have to be judged by only the umemployed or retired. Not exactly the best pool to choose from for certain cases. I've never been summoned, thankfully.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

Tobe wrote:I hear where you're coming from on that, but to me it sort of violates the notion of a "jury of your peers" if you have to be judged by only the umemployed or retired. Not exactly the best pool to choose from for certain cases. I've never been summoned, thankfully.

Ten percent of the country is unemployed, most not by choice. I figure those who are unemployed by choice aren't likely to show up for jury duty anyhow. As it is now the unemployed and retired have to serve. What makes someone unemplyed or retired not a peer? Unemployed people come from all different backgrounds and races etc. Why not allow them to earn a little more money and sit here on a jury instead of someone like me who is already gainfully employed?

Tobe wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

Tobe wrote:I hear where you're coming from on that, but to me it sort of violates the notion of a "jury of your peers" if you have to be judged by only the umemployed or retired. Not exactly the best pool to choose from for certain cases. I've never been summoned, thankfully.

Ten percent of the country is unemployed, most not by choice. I figure those who are unemployed by choice aren't likely to show up for jury duty anyhow. As it is now the unemployed and retired have to serve. What makes someone unemplyed or retired not a peer? Unemployed people come from all different backgrounds and races etc. Why not allow them to earn a little more money and sit here on a jury instead of someone like me who is already gainfully employed?

First, retired people are usually of a certain demographic (i.e. old) that makes them not peers of certain defendants (e.g. a young mother) and might influence their decisions in some cases.

Also, unemployment itself does impact people all across the spectrum (especially today) but if someone is umemployed that too is going to influence their opinions on certain cases (e.g. white collar crime, fraud, labour disputes, etc.) so might prejudice them.

In the end the only fair jury can be one that's representative of a community as a whole, so it can certainly include SOME retired or unemployed people, but really should never be ONLY those people.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

Tobe wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

Tobe wrote:I hear where you're coming from on that, but to me it sort of violates the notion of a "jury of your peers" if you have to be judged by only the umemployed or retired. Not exactly the best pool to choose from for certain cases. I've never been summoned, thankfully.

Ten percent of the country is unemployed, most not by choice. I figure those who are unemployed by choice aren't likely to show up for jury duty anyhow. As it is now the unemployed and retired have to serve. What makes someone unemplyed or retired not a peer? Unemployed people come from all different backgrounds and races etc. Why not allow them to earn a little more money and sit here on a jury instead of someone like me who is already gainfully employed?

First, retired people are usually of a certain demographic (i.e. old) that makes them not peers of certain defendants (e.g. a young mother) and might influence their decisions in some cases.

Also, unemployment itself does impact people all across the spectrum (especially today) but if someone is umemployed that too is going to influence their opinions on certain cases (e.g. white collar crime, fraud, labour disputes, etc.) so might prejudice them.

In the end the only fair jury can be one that's representative of a community as a whole, so it can certainly include SOME retired or unemployed people, but really should never be ONLY those people.

I wholeheartedly (sp) disagree with you. There is an interview process conducted by lawyers from each side to see who is fit to serve BEFORE you even hear about the case. After they choose you are mandated back to court to sit jury. They have no idea who you are what you've done or where you've been. You fill out a questionaire with blanket background info. That's it. They ahve no idea if you're unemployed employed a citizen speak english, deaf, blind etc. (I stated the last two because there was a deaf blind woman in my jury pool). It's a matter of who the lawyers choose and who they see fit. The way you describe it is very romantic and true to the basis of jury selection but it's nonsense because the jury of peers is selected by the Lawyers who are trying the case and their judgement. If you were to just shuffle the ages of those who are madated (unemployed and retired) you'd get the same "Jury of Peers". It's rigged and a joke.

hardcorebee24 wrote:And get paid for it. I've been sitting here at 360 Adams St. in Brooklyn Heights waiting to sit on the case I was assigned to for three hours and forty minutes. Why am I here? The unemployment rate is 10 percent why can't those who are unemployed be made to serve? This is a waste of my time. Anyone have thoughts or conclusions?

BTW in Kings County you can't get out of it anymore. If you can read you serve.

hardcorebee24 wrote:I guess not all. What Im saying is the unemployed should be mandated to jury duty as lo g as they collect unemployment. Like if you're on unemployment or unemployed you should have to serve as often as necessary and be compensated for your trouble. If you are retired you can make yourself available for jury duty if you choose and be compensated for it as well. Forty dollars a day is a joke, up the payment for these folks and allow them to serve as much as they want. After this case ill be done for four years. If I was unemployed id want to be there id I could earn some more scratch.

Soonermark890 wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:And get paid for it. I've been sitting here at 360 Adams St. in Brooklyn Heights waiting to sit on the case I was assigned to for three hours and forty minutes. Why am I here? The unemployment rate is 10 percent why can't those who are unemployed be made to serve? This is a waste of my time. Anyone have thoughts or conclusions?

BTW in Kings County you can't get out of it anymore. If you can read you serve.

Fuck I got my notice for Jury duty on Monday. This is my first time.

gomez1012 wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:I guess not all. What Im saying is the unemployed should be mandated to jury duty as lo g as they collect unemployment. Like if you're on unemployment or unemployed you should have to serve as often as necessary and be compensated for your trouble. If you are retired you can make yourself available for jury duty if you choose and be compensated for it as well. Forty dollars a day is a joke, up the payment for these folks and allow them to serve as much as they want. After this case ill be done for four years. If I was unemployed id want to be there id I could earn some more scratch.

Join the Rent Is Too Damn Party and instill this!

hardcorebee24 wrote:No fucking joke Gomez I saw that guy on Thursday the 18th the first day I had to report before they assigned me to my case. Check it out online. His party got recognized for future ballots.

gomez1012 wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:No fucking joke Gomez I saw that guy on Thursday the 18th the first day I had to report before they assigned me to my case. Check it out online. His party got recognized for future ballots.

Endonde?

hardcorebee24 wrote:http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=TSD4TLjPF5-glwepicsE&q=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/damn_elex_board_lweVaZ5Lxsr0YtJ5l0TviK&ved=0CBgQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHC9y4aG9ossfzJp4xJKJjLbmzRmw

gomez1012 wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=TSD4TLjPF5-glwepicsE&q=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/damn_elex_board_lweVaZ5Lxsr0YtJ5l0TviK&ved=0CBgQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHC9y4aG9ossfzJp4xJKJjLbmzRmw

Aint no quit in him, he's going all out

No doubt he'd get some kind of support if he ran for prez

hardcorebee24 wrote:And get paid for it. I've been sitting here at 360 Adams St. in Brooklyn Heights waiting to sit on the case I was assigned to for three hours and forty minutes. Why am I here? The unemployment rate is 10 percent why can't those who are unemployed be made to serve? This is a waste of my time. Anyone have thoughts or conclusions?

BTW in Kings County you can't get out of it anymore. If you can read you serve.