The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is admonishing jurors who are refusing to follow his instructions

[u/bendubberley_]

[u/cubicthe]

and to compound that problem - jury duty has been considered acceptable involuntary servitude [Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916)] - i.e. it's a form of slavery that's okay because society. thus, you don't get paid even minimum wage even though if the same county paid me to shit in a park I'd get $20/hr for the effort

it really highlights how hypocritical the legal system is, telling us all how important and equitable everything is while not even giving it basic societal support

[u/NurRauch → u/cubicthe]

I don't see that as hypocritical. Public service is not supposed to be viewed through an equity lens. It's recognized as a sacrifice, inherently. People who are conscripted into the military, or summoned for jury duty, or ordered to pay taxes, are all losing out on something. But we accept that that loss is a necessary sacrifice for a greater benefit to the overall public.

In the end, even people who don't want to show up to be jurors still play a vital role in making the system more fair for the parties on trial than it would be without those jurors. I'm sorry but a person on trial for a serious crime needs to have a diverse jury pool of varied backgrounds, education, and socioeconomic circumstances, and that need is more important than the needs of those jurors to earn income for that period of time. The loss that defendant could face is greater than the loss those jurors face.

[u/cubicthe → u/NurRauch]

personal sacrifice wasn't my basis for calling it hypocritical - the basis for hypocrisy is that the government does not fund it despite saying justice is important. I see that same problem constantly with PDs being overworked and underpaid to the point they have to dismiss cases because you can't convict someone that doesn't have counsel. "recognized as a sacrifice" okay why is that? it being recognized as a sacrifice does not make it honorable - just is a repetition of the rhetoric

the rhetoric is that it's important and a societal function but so is building a bridge but the people that build the bridge get paid and so do military conscriptees

it's not defendant versus jury either, nobody has to lose. when I was on a jury I looked around and almost everyone - judge, bailiff, public defender, prosecutors, some of the witnesses, and a police officer playing on his phone were being paid for their time to be there and I was not (why don't the judge and prosecutors work for free? they're most often the ones bloviating that sacrifice value) - when we entered the courtroom everyone rose and it felt like wow, so important but if I didn't have a job that paid me during service I'd be fucked

[u/tragicpapercut → u/NurRauch]

I could not disagree more.

No one should be at risk of losing their home because of service on a jury. No one.

Would you want someone judging you if that person knew they would not be able to pay their mortgage due to lost wages? That is no way to get a fair trial. Now what if that juror supports their family? You expect a child to go homeless because of jury service?

If that's the best way we have to run society, we've failed.

This isn't just a hypothetical, I was nearly that child several decades ago. Some defense attorney took pity / realized he'd be poisoning the jury and excused my parent. The judge did not care.

[u/NurRauch → u/tragicpapercut]

No one should be at risk of losing their home because of service on a jury. No one.

I have quite literally never even heard of that happening. If that was a true risk of jury service I am not aware of any judge out of probably more than 40-50 that I have appeared in front of who would refuse to release that juror from service.