Many full time RVers start off with a Livingston TX address since that's where the Escapees organization is. The first year I got a jury duty notice from Livingston when I was in Washington state in the summer. I called a clerk in Livingston, where a human being actually answered the phone. She understood the situation -- they have many RVers on the voting list there apparently -- and I was excused from jury duty.
Crisis averted. But I wondered if I would be so fortunate the next time around. I decided to play it safe and stop registering to vote, since that's where they got their list of victims for jury duty, presumably. This seemed unfair: why should having a different lifestyle than the average cubicle/mortgage/lawn slob result in losing the chance to vote?
Then I forgot about it for the next few years, since I was never bothered by another jury duty notice. But I felt like a deadbeat citizen for not voting.
In 2010 I once again registered to vote. In 2011 I was called up for jury duty for a long-term capital case at a federal court over 100 miles from where I live.
I don't have a working automobile. Renting a car or staying in a motel would be financially ruinous to me. The federal court offers an automated phone system for the losers who have been picked. They make it very difficult to talk to a human being.
Never have I run into such a bunch of arrogant bullies as this federal court. Their sermon about how it is a citizen's sacred duty to serve on jury duty reminds me of the cliches about military duty in wars that most Americans don't support: the speech sounds pretty as long as most citizens and voters aren't asked to sacrifice anything.
If the court system reimbursed jurors fairly, what would it cost the system: a few hundred million dollars per year? That's round-off error to the federal government. This isn't about sacred duty. It's just a tax that victimizes a few unlucky ones.
The moral of the story is: don't register to vote. All voting really does is give an aura of legitimacy to a corrupt system.
Crisis averted. But I wondered if I would be so fortunate the next time around. I decided to play it safe and stop registering to vote, since that's where they got their list of victims for jury duty, presumably. This seemed unfair: why should having a different lifestyle than the average cubicle/mortgage/lawn slob result in losing the chance to vote?
Then I forgot about it for the next few years, since I was never bothered by another jury duty notice. But I felt like a deadbeat citizen for not voting.
In 2010 I once again registered to vote. In 2011 I was called up for jury duty for a long-term capital case at a federal court over 100 miles from where I live.
I don't have a working automobile. Renting a car or staying in a motel would be financially ruinous to me. The federal court offers an automated phone system for the losers who have been picked. They make it very difficult to talk to a human being.
Never have I run into such a bunch of arrogant bullies as this federal court. Their sermon about how it is a citizen's sacred duty to serve on jury duty reminds me of the cliches about military duty in wars that most Americans don't support: the speech sounds pretty as long as most citizens and voters aren't asked to sacrifice anything.
If the court system reimbursed jurors fairly, what would it cost the system: a few hundred million dollars per year? That's round-off error to the federal government. This isn't about sacred duty. It's just a tax that victimizes a few unlucky ones.
The moral of the story is: don't register to vote. All voting really does is give an aura of legitimacy to a corrupt system.
Comments
Not even sure why a jury system exists. By the time lawyers are through with the jury selection, there are few peers left in the jury box. How about abandoning the jury system in favor of a three judge panel when a "jury" trial is requested.
Schopenhauer wrote an essay somewhere criticizing the English jury system. I think that three judges are more competent than 12 Angry Men in deciding guilty or not-guilty.
But originally people must have seen judges as loyal to their own class. That is still somewhat true in modern times: if you were charged with something by the Internal Revenue Service, would judges give you a fair trial, considering that they are just salaried federal employees? Who do you think they are loyal to?
The problem with juries is that they are not competent in law. How can a jury possibly be trained in law over the course of a trial. The lawyers (defense and prosecutors) would not want that kind of jury. The lawyers go for emotion -- not analytic and reasoning skills.
Another gripe about the justice "system"... There are states and municipalities that elect judges. How could those elected judges possibly be unbiased when on the bench. Make an unfavorable ruling and reelection is gone -- and the job. Judges should be appointed akin to the Federal system. Not perfect, but it sure beats an election system for judges.