Justice and jury duty
Several weeks ago, the State of Hawaii selected me for jury
duty. After three days spent waiting and observed, I, along with fifty plus
other jurors, was dismissed. The jury had been empaneled without requiring our services.
The process evoked several musings.
First, the number of persons in the jury pool who expressed
their displeasure with being called to serve disturbed me. Juries constitute a
vital check on the power of prosecutors and the judiciary. Without juries of
citizens – one’s peers – the criminal justice would become the exclusive domain
of professionals. Invariably, systems relegated to professionals tend over time
to abuse their power. They may opt for shortcuts to expedite outcomes,
including infringing upon individual rights. This well-intentioned infringement
is amply documented in the pressure on prosecutors and public defenders to plea
bargain as frequently as possible to avoid the costs and time jury trials
entail. In short, occasionally serving on a jury seems a small price to pay for
preventing drift toward a police state.
Second, the process provided a lesson in how systems, even well-intentioned
systems, devalue and abuse the powerless. Jurors must attend. The Judge
initiated bench warrants for the approximately forty no-shows. Jurors are paid
$30 per day while on duty. Jurors with salaried positions or regular, hourly positions
still receive their regular income. Jurors who work irregular hours, paid by
the hour, typically lose their income during jury duty. Self-employed jurors
(gig workers, freelancers, small business owners) earn only the $30 per day
while serving. In contrast, district judges in Hawaii earn slightly more than
$200,000 per year. Lawyers bill by the hour; hourly rates in excess of $300 are
common. Consequently, the criminal justice system places a premium on the time
of judges and lawyers, resulting in potential jurors spending many hours waiting.
If jurors earned minimum wage or more, the criminal justice system would place
more value on jurors’ time; citizens might also be more willing to serve as
jurors.
Third, the jury pool appeared diverse with respect to gender
and race, but not to economic status. Appearances may be deceptive. However, only
one or two in the jury pool of 140 plus persons appeared as if they earned
$200,000 or more per year, in a state in which over 10% of the population earns
that amount. High earners may have identified ways in which legitimately to avoid
jury duty. If true, then the jury does not reflect Hawaii’s socio-economic
composition. Similarly, the jury pool did not seem to include persons from
Hawaii’s lowest socio-economic stratum. Since the jury pool seems drawn from
registered voters, perhaps, these persons, like some high earners, may have failed
to register to vote. Linking voter registration to issuing driving licenses and
state ID cards will (1) increase voter registration, (2) assist in keeping voter
registration lists current and (3) expand the number of people eligible for
jury duty to resemble the state’s population more closely.
Comments