- #1
sysprog
- 2,617
- 1,795
Do you find that you are or may be, as a scientist, engineer, mathematician, or other technically learned person, more likely than other persons to be by lawyers disqualified or excused from jury duty?
It seems to me that a lawyer who knows that he has a weak case might tend to reject scientifically-minded jurors, but a defense attorney might prefer a juror who routinely requires rigorous proof before deciding that something is definitely true, over a juror who has a 'something bad happened, wherefore justice requires that someone must pay' attitude -- on the whole, I think that prosecutors, more than defense attorneys, are more apt to try whenever they can to remove STEM people from juries.
I've never served on a jury, even though I've received mailings the printed content of which alleged that I had a lawful duty to do so. I reasoned that I had not been properly served with a summons, and consequently I disregarded the mailing as junk mail. Later I got another mailing that said that I had to show cause regarding why I had not shown up in response to the prior mailing. I reasoned that this also was not a proper summons, and accordingly I disregarded that mailing too. From that inaction of mine, no to-me-apprehensible consequences whatever ensued.
So now I think that juries may be skewed in the direction of admitting only highly tractable people, who are likely to be obedient when they get a computer-generated notice in the mail, instead of waiting to hear the Sheriff pounding on the door before deciding that they should pay heed.
I am not really against serving on a jury, but I am against my having to prove in advance that I'm what I would regard as overly willing to accept as proven something that is not in my opinion adequately proven, so I have, in my opinion, thereby felt compelled to do ignorings that have resulted in my being absent from the jury pool, and have as a consequence deprived it of part of its legitimacy.
It seems to me that a lawyer who knows that he has a weak case might tend to reject scientifically-minded jurors, but a defense attorney might prefer a juror who routinely requires rigorous proof before deciding that something is definitely true, over a juror who has a 'something bad happened, wherefore justice requires that someone must pay' attitude -- on the whole, I think that prosecutors, more than defense attorneys, are more apt to try whenever they can to remove STEM people from juries.
I've never served on a jury, even though I've received mailings the printed content of which alleged that I had a lawful duty to do so. I reasoned that I had not been properly served with a summons, and consequently I disregarded the mailing as junk mail. Later I got another mailing that said that I had to show cause regarding why I had not shown up in response to the prior mailing. I reasoned that this also was not a proper summons, and accordingly I disregarded that mailing too. From that inaction of mine, no to-me-apprehensible consequences whatever ensued.
So now I think that juries may be skewed in the direction of admitting only highly tractable people, who are likely to be obedient when they get a computer-generated notice in the mail, instead of waiting to hear the Sheriff pounding on the door before deciding that they should pay heed.
I am not really against serving on a jury, but I am against my having to prove in advance that I'm what I would regard as overly willing to accept as proven something that is not in my opinion adequately proven, so I have, in my opinion, thereby felt compelled to do ignorings that have resulted in my being absent from the jury pool, and have as a consequence deprived it of part of its legitimacy.
Last edited: