Jury duty: Just do it
Why bemoan and dodge the most important protection of all?
Hear ye! Hear ye!
To believers in democracy who bemoan and dodge jury duty -- a sentiment I hear a lot -- I bear a civic message:
Either you don’t understand democratic principles, or you’re a hypocrite.
Here’s a kinder way to put it, as a question:
Which is more important for a free and fair society, the ballot box or the jury box?
My answer:
The jury box, no doubt.
The right to a trial by “peers” (that’s an interesting word to be explored), who must deliver a unanimous guilty verdict before any “authority” can take away freedom, is the greatest single democratic protection ever created. It’s way more powerful than an AK-47 in the hands of a Second Amendment fool. And it’s more influential than marking a ballot every few years for one political candidate or another.
The roots of trial by jury are said to go back to the Magna Carta in England more than 800 years ago, a document created by a lordly class to fulcrum leverage over a king, so not egalitarian nor talking about juries anyway.
Over time the concept of protection expanded; by the American Revolution juries were seen as a crucial block against Red Coats and then our own new government carting people away for arbitrary, unproven, political, personal, or economic reasons.
This is the true beating heart in any living body that yearns for freedom from tyranny. This is the true check against arbitrary power. That a government must first convince a skeptical, hopefully unruly cluster of “ordinary” citizens to indict, punish, put behind bars a fellow human, seems like a basic idea. But it is breathtaking in the way it shifts a society’s balance of power.
It is the best way ever created to stop that thing called “police state.”
Ahhh, but the mechanism works at its best only when the idea of “peers,” those who sit in judgement, truly defines their relationship to those who are judged. Across much of our history, if you happened to be a white man, with money and property, that might have been the case. But not for everyone else.
The US Supreme didn’t once and for all establish the right for women to serve on juries in every state until 1975, if you can believe that, though different states did it earlier. Black Americans got the right on paper a century prior, but that was a law ignored, scorned, and reviled.
So while jury trial remained a force pushing back on arbitrary prosecution, it wasn’t as strong a protection for people who by dint of race, class, gender, religion, were more likely targeted, more likely stereotyped -- but much less likely to see someone who looked like them sitting in the jury box, a peer who might better understand that.
Which brings me, good souls, to that moment when a summons shows up in the mailbox, and your first instinct is to groan rather than celebrate, to begin scheming how to avoid being pushed into the “pool” rather than starring the day on the calendar.
In doing so, you are implying (if not saying) that your time is so precious, your freedom so well guaranteed, that you will not make this small contribution to justice. You – not a racist or sexist – are warping the idea of “peer.”
Note that I said “contribution,” not “sacrifice.” In my times sitting on juries, I ended the days with a profound sense that I had been a part of something important, and healthy.
I sat with total strangers and we came to a meeting of the minds.
I listened to judges carefully instructing us about what we should and shouldn’t take into account.
I mused and agonized with the responsibility of sitting in judgement of another person while also sitting as voice for a victim.
I went home stunned, emotionally drained, but more compassionate, more human.
We cannot find room for this in our lives? Are we really that spoiled, pampered, so far removed from the idea of citizenship?
The word people use is “serve.” It’s a good word. To serve on a jury is to embody a high ideal, exercise a fundamental right and profound privilege.
Just do it.
Haven’t subscribed yet? To keep seeing a Voice (a cool trick), please support this local expression:
The comments coming in are fascinating and deep, much appreciate the thought and care going into them. They continue to shape my thinking and I'm sure others, very big thanks. s
I agree with all your points, Seth. Thank you, this was well worth sharing. I had little idea what others thought about jury service. I've been called three times, and needed on the day twice (in NJ and MA). Each of those was an interesting and valuable adventure into learning how something that is vital for our society really works. The confidence it builds in a robust, independent legal, process strengthens our confidence in democracy.
I think there are two other dimensions to all this that are well worth highlighting.
The process only works well because most or all participants have a deep respect for the judge. The judge takes the jury in his hand, and educates them on their value, purpose and boundaries. The judge's clarity builds jurist confidence. The in-room discussions regularly refer back to the judge's direction. If we collectively lose faith in the judiciary, the jury process will crumble. I hope the Supreme Court (and the Senate) can refocus and understand this.
Juries shape our society in significant ways. The process is way too cumbersome for every disagreement to go through. It works best by faith, reference and deterrence. Everyone's belief in its rigor deters a multitude of transgressions and leads to many more civil settlements. Jury decisions set and move the boundaries for how our society's rules are shaped, interpreted and enforced, all the way from the behaviors of global mega-corporations to those of a cop or official in our home town. They also do this in the more subtle matters of inter-cultural understanding and equity. The focused listening in a jury discussion is truly deep and palpable. We are able to both teach and learn a lot as jurists. This power and role is another great reason to participate proudly!