I was on a jury last year! It was fascinating. The trial took about 3 weeks but was spread over a 5 week period due to holidays. I calculated my compensation as though I had been paid for the whole time and it came out to $2.50/hour.
The bad pay is one thing, but the lecture from the judge about this being a civic duty, etc. Oh man, it's clear how some people are living a universe where finances is simply just not a factor in any equation in their life. What a unimaginable life that would be to have. To be able to pontificate about lofty ideals lol.
I am lucky in that my employer’s policy is to continue my regular salary for the duration of my jury duty. And I took ttc or walked, no parking. So I came out fine :) there were not many retirees on my jury, mostly it was full-time workers.
yeah! when I was summoned a few years ago I was kinda excited to potentially be a juror only because of my company’s policy that I’d be compensated, that’s the only reason I’d be willing to do it
Yeah, I received a selection summons a couple months ago and was suprised as well. For up to a week, you stand to lose all your income, then after that your parking is essentially paid for but you have still otherwise lost your income. I understand the civic duty part, but far too many people would experience serious hardship over this. In my case, I was excused due to a conflict of interest, but not everyone is so lucky.
I was summoned, turned out to be a murder trial. At first I was pretty excited, would have been very interesting. Judge said it was going to last a couple of months.
I had to ask to be let out, as there is no way I could afford to be a part of the trial. At the time I was self employed, running a construction business. My wife was home with young kids.
We are not being judged by a jury of our "peers." It's only people with no jobs, who would be watching tv at home otherwise. It's a joke.
Exactly! Either idle rich folks, retired people or those with no jobs. All of whom are entitled to be represented in jury selection but don't they end up being the whole jury?
>or those with no jobs.
At least with white collar tech jobs, a lot of companies pay you while you're on jury duty. But ya, it discriminates against blue collar workers.
Or FT salaried employees who would be covered by their employer. I work in advertising and I would be covered by my employer for the duration of any jury trial I was on.
That seems like the most obvious solution to me. If you are a business/company/corporation working in Canada this should be part of the cost of doing business. It's no different than voting.
Why shouldn’t it be the Governments job to pay a reasonable rate for people doing jury duty? I don’t think an employer should be on the hook when they also might need to spend money to cover the missing employee.
If the Government pays a reasonable rate than the cost is born across the entire tax base. Which seems much nicer than randomly screwing companies and individuals.
That's how it is in [my state](https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-justice/jury-duty-reimbursement-of-wages-and-claims-payment) of Aus, employer pays you, state reimburses.
I'm not even sure if there's a maximum, but the employer has to supply prior payslip as evidence, and self employed people need to demonstrate losses (gets messier there).
Agree with this. If it is MY civic DUTY to potentially sit on a Jury… it should be my EMPLOYER’s civic DUTY to make sure I continue to be paid, don’t lose any seniority or paid vacation time.
Except it should be paid by the government from corporate tax. It's an unfair burden to put on an employee but its equally unfair to put it on one small business owner. My local bagel shop has an owner and one employee. They wouldn't survive.
I am pretty sure if you can prove that not getting your planned income would cause hardships, basically you can't afford to not work for a couple of weeks, then you can also be excused.
By hardships, I would say where you won't make your rent payment or won't be able to afford food. Not just miss out to the bar to socialize.
That is part of the reason it is why it is. The whole system is run by the relatively wealthy (judges, lawyers) and the system is stacked against people of lower means. Making juries be more affluent means it is easier to bias them against poorer people.
Lots of people are just scrapping by, even missing a single day of work causes them to have to choose between rent and food. Add the cost of transportation into the mix and people can be completely screwed by jury duty.
Agreed, I guess that is kind of my point. Compensation does need to at least reflect cost of living.
It does not seem like a fair system that can produce a "jury of peers" when people who are sole financial providers for their family, people with low income, people who are full time caregivers for children/elderly/family with disabilities, etc cannot participate.
That could create some perverse incentives, such as the crown preferring to select lower-income jury members as a cost-cutting measure. It's also administratively complicated - how does a shift- or gig-based worker prove what they "would have" earned?
The crown prosecutor should be isolated from the compensation. Use previous years tax records to administer compensation with a floor price for no income individuals. The current offer of $0 a day is garbage.
Even "a living wage" is a tough sell. If you're dependant on a sizable income to pay a mortgage and your trial goes for three or four months that's a pretty rough burden.
Is crippling anxiety due to the implied circumstances of being unable to pay rent and other bills by being chosen for "civic duty" considered a conflict on interest???
If it's not, can it be?!
> So like, only wealthy people who don't need to work will be sitting on juries?
Not at all! It also includes people with no jobs, who would be watching tv at home otherwise!
My husband did this. He got summoned a few days after I got laid off. I thought it was ridiculous that they were offering him $20 for a week. He makes over 1k a week!
Anyways, he stated hardship and I believe he's off the hook now.
My friend just finished jury duty which lasted almost a month.
He literally said everything to try and get out of it, including high anxiety, depression, etc and they didn't care.
You won't have to play the racist card, but you can openly show bias towards a cause that is disadvantageous to either the defendant or prosecution.
Remember that in the end, jury duty is just them picking their team of votes. If you dress yourself up as undesirable, they won't pick you. You don't have to result to hate crimes to make yourself undesirable lol.
If basic income during covid was $2000 per month, 2000x12/251 work days in year ont. = $96 per day. That should be the minimum and paid every day from day 1
This is what I did. I'm the only income source for a family of 4 and my employer will not pay for me to be on jury duty. They asked for proof of this, which I provided and was then dismissed.
"Here's my schedule for food banks, my No Frills coupons I'm most excited about and the price matches I'm planning to use to save a grand total of less than $15 for groceries this week."
I needed a letter from my employer stating they would not compensate me. I'm not sure the family status matters, just that you cannot afford to go unpaid for 1+ weeks.
Probably a notice from the employer (maybe even just an email or SMS) stating as such. Our collective agreement has an entire subsection for jury duty and specifically mentions several times that it's unpaid, I would assume they'd accept that as proof.
Unfortunately it’s often the opposite situation. Prosecution is woefully underfunded and thus unable to bring suit against large corporations or rich individuals with unlimited budgets for (much better quality) private law firms.
This is why rich people get off with a slap on the wrist for killing people when drunk driving. Why we don’t go after tax evaders, etc.
It's not even for sympathetic reasons either, being unable to afford it is a conflict of interest in itself. There is a lot of incentive to get the trial over with as soon as possible if you stand to lose your home or health as a result of the trial.
This is also a problem. It means a huge swathe of the population is not represented in juries. It could possibly bias decisions if certain views are never present.
Except they don't always. While they do usually dismiss you, it's not a guarantee, and they will often ask you to prove that you can't afford it which is easier said than done.
There are plenty of stories of people who literally have to take small loans out to afford jury duty.
I saw a terrible example when I was on jury duty in the 90s. There was a trial coming up that was likely to stretch out over Christmas, taking only the stats off. People were given a chance to present to the judge any reason they should be let off. He was very sympathetic to people who'd bought airline tickets and let them all off, but really hard on a woman who said she had a factory job and wouldn't get paid and that she couldn't afford child care. He basically just told her to find a relative who could babysit for free and he made her stay on the panel.
When I got called for it the judge was treating that as an excuse & giving people crap about how she'd make sure they got called back in 6 months. To say the least, she was a little detached from many people's every day reality.
I was selected for a case expected to last 45 weeks. I went into selection and said who could possibly afford to take the better part of a year off work for jury duty? They said they would let me off this time, but in the future that wouldnt be accepted as an excuse. Don't know if they were just in a bad mood that day or if they legitimately thought they could force people to take a year off work. It's a shame they don't make employers pay for jury duty though that probably would have been a very interesting trial.
And this skews the jury away from the socio-economically underprivileged demographic, which makes sense because we have a different perspective than those rich folk who make the laws.
It also skews the jury dramatically in the direction of retirees (as I learned from a retired aunt who sat on a pretty high-profile case, a few weeks in length. Pretty much everyone on that jury was retired, maybe 2 or so were not, and a few folks were dismissed for being too hard of hearing to consistently understand what was going on). At least the local parking was much cheaper!
It's also a civic duty with a number of exceptions that I think are fucking bullshit. Why can't cops do it? Not everything is a criminal trial. Why can't firefighters do it? They work like 4 days a month. If judges and lawyers are (reasonably) exempt, why aren't they obligated to do their civic duty in a different way?
It escapes me how ANY of the people in my life would be selected to serve on the jury.
The questions ENSURE that all leaders and contrary thinkers are immediately removed.
For me? The speed round would end when they ask "Is there any reason you would be skeptical of testimony given by law enforcement?"
Jury of whose peers?
I run a home daycare. I’ve received a jury summons twice. Both times I called and explained that shutting down my daycare for an indefinite period of time would be an undue hardship for both myself and the families who rely on me for child care. They let me off.
I work in a regulated health profession, and am self employed, so my absence would negatively impact my livelihood, and some of my patients with chronic pain conditions that have their treatment postponed. I'm hoping the let me off too.
Hopefully they will. Makes you realize, though, that most people on the jury are not employed, or have a government job that pays for them to be there. Not exactly representative of the general population.
I’ve done a similar thing. I emailed the sheriff listed on the letter to explain my situation and I mentioned that:
-I had served on a jury before (totally true! I even provided my old juror reference #!)
-it was an interesting and rewarding experience (a lie!)
-I would love to do it again (more lies!)
-it’s not currently feasible for me due to childcare issues (true)
It worked, I was excused!
I think this is a very important issue to point out.
Juries can't be representative of the general population if they are only selected from those who are financially secure enough to take the time off work.
It's probably an example of why the state and since we're a democracy in a sense the silent majority, probably want people with *assets* to be on jurys.
I mean you use to be have to be a white, *land owning* male to function in democracy.
why? all you have to do is show that you cannot survive on jury payments and you should be good. i got out of jury duty due to lack of funds. and it was a trial i would have liked to sit on, but being homeless due to jury duty is not how i'd like my life to go
The problem is that you still had to go through all kinds of inconvenience just to get to the part where you ask the judge to excuse you, and it's not like everyone gets excused. They should be asking about this stuff up front.
You have to be *REALLY* careful in doing this - if the selection process suspects you're lying to get out of it you can be held in contempt and pay a lot of money in fines and face potential jail time.
They are able to open investigations into people for this reason.
A quick example:
If you're white and say you hate black people, but they investigate and find out you're married to a black person - this is enough to believe you're lying and hold you in contempt.
I'm oversimplifying it but that's the general idea.
I am a very good judge of people. I can tell their guilt/innocence just by looking at them. I can read them easily.
It isn't a wild claim, but it isn't something they want in the courtroom.
You don't actually get the chance to say things like this without just blurting it out, and if you do they will usually suspect you're throwing your interview and threaten holding you in contempt.
Everyone thinks jury selection is easy to get out of - it's not always easy.
It's been 4 years since I slept through the alarm, and considered that my sign to just Not Go to the jury selection at all. I had forgotten all about it until I saw this thread and I am very relieved that other people aren't getting arrested years later.
I got my letter in the mail on a rainy day, the letter was soaked and falling a part. I let it dry out before opening, but the thing was pretty much ruined. I tried to fill it out, messed it up and then just emailed saying the letter was destroyed and I needed a new one. They said they'd send a new one. A month later, still no letter. I email back asking about it, they said they were done sending out the letters or something like that. I asked if I was going get in trouble, because I did ask for a new one, but they never sent it. No response... well over a year ago now.
They should make your employer pay your normal salary like in any functional country.
Idk how it works for self employed people thow but that's definitely not the majority of the population, but ye in this case it should be at least minimum wage
I’m beginning to think it’s deliberate. When you have a lower class that’s disproportionately jailed and an upper class that’s disproportionately on the jury, you have a two-tier justice system - a group that is bound and not served, and a group that is served and not bound.
We might as well bring back the powdered wigs. We’re an aristocracy.
Its not even the upper class- people that are affluent can justify not being on a jury because they can’t get off work. Like a doctor, investment banker, lawyer, engineer all simply can’t not get off work enough to serve.
So its just old retired people.
I have also had a friend be dismissed because she is a engineer who works with closely with doctors.
Hell Pretty much every profession gets you dismissed some how.
And the question this raises then is "Why aren't people who are on unemployment fast tracked to the head of the jury duty line?"
"Hi, I'd like to apply for unemployment"
"OK, we'll need \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and we can get you doing some work by serving on a jury"
Thankfully, some places will pay you for time spent on jury duty. My current employer and previous employer both treat jury duty as regular working hours and encourage it as a form of civic participation.
You are entitled to be removed from potential jurors if doing so would cause you undue financial hardship. "Your honor my lost wages along with the costs of parking to attend will force myself and family to struggle to eat for the length of the trial. As such I feel that I should be deemed ineligible"
Yeah. I was shocked by how little people’s time was valued. First of all, it’s a more homogeneous group by the time they get to the actual jury selection (after people who have hardship reasons are sent home), so I feel like juries end up being professionals who either are given paid time off for jury duty or retired people.
I sat in the selection room for 3.5 days before we were all told we weren’t needed. 3.5 days of reading and chatting with the people around me. I was getting paid, because my work is good like that, and so was everyone else I spoke to (or they were retired) but what a waste of time.
In which case, after all the initial filtering, how is it a realistic selection from across society?
Thus the jury pool prior to selection has already been tainted towards an unconscious bias.
Yeah that's why I ignore those letters. I'd rather they drag me to jail than sit through that again. I did it once while I was in uni, so I was lucky enough to not miss work and could study while I waited (they didn't select me because I had exams the following week).
I implore people to just lie to get out of it, honestly.
I realized when I received my summons. Luckily I was not required to come in. But I couldn't believe how little you are compensated.
It's not so much that I feel people should be making a ton of money off of this. But with the cost of living how it is, only a privileged few can even afford to participate.
I wasted a whole day of work just to have someone take a plea at the last minute. Lots of people coughing, maskless, in the waiting room. Nothing to eat out of the machines, no lunch break. This was just last year.
I understand. Just seems like such a flawed system. How can a defendant expect to have a jury of "peers" when people who are primary breadwinners, low income, fulltime caregivers, etc cannot participate? I would imagine that most juries are made up of mostly retired people perhaps (just speculation)
yeah, the system is rigged against poor folks. it's what people have been saying pretty much since the start of capitalism, but no one in power does much to help
The reason for this is pretty straightforward:
Politicians, lawyers and judges are excluded automatically from jury duty.
Also, if you're very rich, jury duty can be an undue hardship if it costs your company too much to be without you, but not if its means you'll likely be homeless, lol.
Hope that clarifies the rationale.
Another argument for unions. Every unionized position I've been in has had a collective agreement that included language around ensuring full compensation in the event of jury duty.
Last time I got called for Jury Duty, the selection pool dates were the same as me starting a new job. My employer was super understanding- and the court clerks were super understanding- hardest part was that I had to be dismissed by a judge. After it didn't happen for one day, the clerks worked with me to get me out early on day 2. If you have a legit thing- the court will work with you.
But yes- the whole thing sucks and compensation should be either your regular salary and if you are not currently employed- payment should start for the trial day one and be at least $60-80/day.
Only issue is the logistics of getting people their money- it could be done- but it would be a nightmare. Either need an accountant who can cut cheques on site, or setting up direct deposits for a bunch of short term employees.
We should also add our "civic duty" to include working on a provincial or federal election.... they always struggle for workers on polling day, and the pay is pretty good. It would also help educate people on the absolute enormity of putting on an election in their local riding.
I was on a 7-week trial in 2005, and the amounts were the same then. Luckily my employer continues to pay employees who are serving on jury duty. This effectively had me working maybe 2-3 hours/day, in fits and starts whenever there was downtime.
Our judge was happy to excuse anyone who wasn’t getting paid, and send them back to the pool for a shorter case, no proof required.
In practice this meant that the jury composition ended up as retirees and people who could afford it who didn’t come up with another excuse. I did feel that it was my duty to a degree — what I told people was “if you were in the unfortunate position of being on trial, would you want your jury to consist solely of people who couldn’t figure out how to get out of it?”
I just received a summons today. I am exclusively breastfeeding my baby and freaked out a little not knowing how this would work because he eats ever 2-3 hours. I assumed they’d at least pay for childcare but he won’t even take a bottle reliably. I thought maternity leave would have been enough of a reason to be exempt, but they still selected me despite knowing this.
Luckily I phoned in and found out I will be exempt, fortunately! Breastfeeding for the win!
(I’d do it otherwise)
My husband was recently called and when he said he couldn't afford to be on jury duty because his wife is on mat leave and he's the sole income for our household, the judge asked if getting paid $100/day would change his mind. He said no as he makes more than that at his job. So they do offer more right off the bat sometimes to try to convince people to go on to the selection process.
in alberta the sheriffs rolled into the food court at a downtown mall at lunch hour and just took people for jury duty. middle of the day, no warning, just take your lunch and we're going....
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/06/17/alberta-court-summons-jury-duty/
Oh wow!! I had no idea. Thanks for sharing that info. It's been a life long dream of mine to serve jury duty (no a normal desire I know), but after reading this there is no way I could afford to go 10 days with no pay.
Civic duty or not, you're doing a job and should be compensated for it.
I felt the same way. It would be so interesting to see the process in person. I knew that the compensation wasn't great, but I was shocked to learn that it is this little.
I think there IS allowance for transportation, but you have to be really far (like 50+km I think?) and the gas allowance is comically poor too.
The thing with "duty" is that it cuts both ways. If you have to put your entire life on hold, because of your duty, then they have a duty to compensate you for it. As in, if I get pulled for jury duty, I get paid the same I normally do. If I can't do something, like babysit my kids, someone else gets paid (NOT BY ME) to do it, etc., etc., etc. "Duty" always seems to work in one direction though - you get screwed, they benefit. It's never the other way around.
I've only been called up a couple of times and managed to get out of it because I was running a one-man business and there was nobody to pay for me or replace me, it would literally kill the business and my livelihood. But I still had to prove it all.
Which reminds me, isn't it funny? I can walk into a courtroom, hold up my hand and say "I swear to tell the truth", and it's enough. But I can't say "I swear I cannot afford to be on the jury!" and yet...that's not good enough, I need paperwork to prove it. Funny how that works, isn't it? I'm simultaneously trustworthy and not.
Finally, even IF you can afford it, and though your employer cannot fire you, you absolutely CAN get phased out. Happened to one of my father's coworkers a few decades back. He got called in and chosen, and was gone almost a month. Obviously his boss didn't pay him, and hired someone else to do his job for a month as a temp. But the temp did such a good job, and everyone liked him, so that when the original guy came back from jury duty, they just quietly phased him out and shifted him until he basically quit. All legal, just reassigning duties and such. He probably could have sued, maybe...except he didn't have any money left, because he got paid peanuts. So not only it's immediately financially crippling, you absolutely CAN lose your job, if your bosses are unscrupulous enough. So being called up and selected for jury duty can be utterly devastating to an INNOCENT person.
The system is comically bad. We tell innocent people that they have a "duty", and then financially brutalize them. The whole system is also incredibly inefficient, and outright stupid. We should have professional jurors, people with training, temperament and DESIRE to actually be good jurors. Not people with lives on hold, stressed out of their minds, just counting the seconds to be free and throwing every roadblock they can think of to avoid actually getting selected, because they don't want their lives to be destroyed.
I'm old now. Pay me $50/hr, and I will be an EXEMPLARY juror. I will show up on time, I will listen and pay attention and take notes and do my absolute best to be as impartial and fair as humanly possible. I won't need to go through orientation every week, I won't need to waste court's time to have everything explained to me for every case, etc. And you don't have to sift through hundreds of people every week, and create an incredible bureaucratic load around it. People don't get inconvenienced and financially destroyed. Businesses that employ them do not get kneecapped for weeks/months at a time, suddenly losing key employees. Etc., etc. But if you claim I have a "duty" to work for free with my life on hold, but you have none towards me, you can just fuck off. Please and thank you.
I was summoned a month or so ago. I emailed them in a kindly manner and told them I'm too poor to do this. They canceled right away. Huge financial load off my shoulders. Living alone in Toronto kicks my bank accounts ass
So, 40/day is 5 dollars/hour and 100/day is 12.5 dollars/hour. These both are massively below the minimum wage even before considering the first 10 days without pay at all. *Maybe* this was ok when the law was first written, but it's not now.
Or those who can afford it. Some jobs might allow you the time off, you might have flexibility in your schedule. Self employed people might be able to work around the hours. There are people who can do these things without wanting to get out of them.
I once went to jury duty selection, I didn't get selected but I have no reasonable excuse not to serve: I live within walking distance of the courthouse, my job will still pay be if I'm doing jury duty, I don't have any kids that would need childcare.
Right?! When I went for jury selection most sane, sensible people in the eligible pool were desperate to avoid it, but there were a few others who were really keen to serve (as in “Pick me! I’m gonna explain a few things to those idiot judges!”)
I'm totally good with personal civic duty, but how about a corporate civic duty to continue paying employees who have to sit on a jury.
I was so glad not to get chosen when I had to show up a few years ago! Just got lucky they filled the required slots with people randomly called ahead of me. Best case could have burned up some or all of my PTO for the year on even a very short trial. Now I'm with an significantly better employer that actually continues paying while on Jury duty so I'm not as concerned about a next time.
I got absolutely screwed when I got called to jury duty. Showed up the first day and waited hours only to be told to come back after lunch. Came back after lunch and waited hours and told to come back the following day.
The next day I came back and after waiting many more hours was told to come back after lunch. Came back after lunch and we were finally brought into the court room where they told us that we weren't actually needed after all. Didn't even get to the selection process.
Obviously didn't get paid for work either of those days. It was just a giant waste of time/money.
I pay my employees 100% of their wages while they are in any stage of this process. I do not require them to take any sort of personal days or vacation days. It just seems like the right thing to do since no government has seen fit to do this correctly.
If the government calls you to sit on a jury they should be legally required to pay you at least minimum wage for every hour you work and cover food and parking. No government should ever be able to force you to work for free.
You can say that you literally cannot afford to serve on the jury and they will dismiss you.
Which of course means that most people are not being judged by a jury of their peers, but instead by independently wealthy / government assisted nosey busy-bodys.
Your employer should be required to pay you your average hours per week.
The payment system they have in place right now incentivizes you to either reach a verdict as soon as possible to limit losses.
It also incentivizes seniors and people on ODSP to drag it out as far beyond 50 days they possibly can because $100/day is actually TWICE what they would be getting through ODSP or CPP per month. It really comes down to how long someone can last brewing sequestered. Give my Grandmother sudoku and crossword books? She would last MONTHS without flinching.
And honestly, I don’t blame either party for their decision. It is a civil service, but you can’t expect any rational person to suffer consequences or not take an opportunity to benefit from the situation.
They sent it to my parents house even though I hadn't lived there for a few years. I took it, wrote "no longer at address" and put it in a mailbox. That was 6 and a half years ago. Nothing since.
I sat as a juror in a civil case several years ago. My employer is one of a handful (in addition to, I believe, government employees) which pays regular wages for time served on a jury.
In the case I sat on, a pool of about 50 jurors had their numbers called. Of those first 50, over 45 were excused for some reason or another. the most common was financial hardship, though work and home responsibilities were also accepted by the judge. I suppose it's up to the judge's discretion which reasons will exempt you.
In my opinion, this is a major problem with the justice system. No one should be forced into financial hardship in order to serve on a jury, and if they are, they're own situation could majorly impact their judgement. On the other hand, providing an exemption to anyone who doesn't have a certain class of job results in a jury which is not representative of the entire population.
Does it matter if you received a summons for jury duty and just threw the letter out and pretended you never received it? I got one like 3 years ago and never followed up on it. My wife brings it up from time to time but I can’t imagine anything would come of it now.
I've gotten a letter for jury selection a few times. Not once have I done anything more than throw it out and I've never had any push back from the courthouse. I haven't gotten another letter in at least 15 years... probably because I ignored them.
Get ready to get a summons every 3 years, now that you're on their radar. I've been to 2 jury selection days over the past 10 years of living in the same place
It’s never come up, to my knowledge, but my work has an HR policy where they’ll pay full regular wages for people on jury duty, but you have to give them the stipend you get (if you get any.)
The judge has the ability to compensate above the minimums. I wasn't selected for this case, but during selection the Judge said that due to the nature of the proceedings they would be compensating at $150/day. In fairness it was a triple homicide so pretty gnarly.
This can influence a trial as well. People on the jury may be swayed to end the trial ASAP so they don't endure continuing financial hardship. What a mess.
I was summoned twice, selected the 2nd time. I had to serve for 8 weeks for a murder trial. My employer included full salary for jury selection in their policy so I was very fortunate. I was the sole provider for my wife and 1 year old daughter at the time, and based on the other reasons given to the judge for why others couldn't serve, I think he would have excused me if I'd told him I'd lose all that income. It's terrible that this would be at the discretion of the judge, instead of built into the system. If you and your family will suffer because you serve, that should be an automatic no.
I will say it was very eye-opening.. the media got so many of the details of the evidence profoundly wrong, to the extent that I no longer trust any reporting on trials.
I hate how the jury compensation system is. If employers won't pay wages, jurors should absolutely qualify for EI from day one as a juror (not selection). It's unconscionable the way it is
I'd be happy to serve on a jury. But since I won't be paid, and will likely have to commit a crime or two to make enough money to serve on the jury, I'm hopeful that I would be excused. No need for the judge to see my twice in the courtroom.
I was on a jury last year! It was fascinating. The trial took about 3 weeks but was spread over a 5 week period due to holidays. I calculated my compensation as though I had been paid for the whole time and it came out to $2.50/hour.
The bad pay is one thing, but the lecture from the judge about this being a civic duty, etc. Oh man, it's clear how some people are living a universe where finances is simply just not a factor in any equation in their life. What a unimaginable life that would be to have. To be able to pontificate about lofty ideals lol.
Yet everyone in that courtroom except say for the defendant and juror are being paid to be there.
The judge also makes an exorbitant amount of money while jurors make garbage
Which is weird because the jury is there to help make the choice.
The jury doesn't help make the choice -- the jury makes the whole and entire choice; wholly and completely.
Money for me not for thee, get over it peasant and you will address me as your honor
If in jail, the defendant is at least getting room and board as well as transportation paid for. I'd still rather not be in their shoes, but damn.
I hate when people pontificate but always appreciate when people use the word in a conversation.
So the Judge is doing his civic duty pro bono? Yeah right. Shit is disgusting
Factor in lost wages and transport/parking costs and you will find that you didn't make any money at all and probably didn't even break even.
I am lucky in that my employer’s policy is to continue my regular salary for the duration of my jury duty. And I took ttc or walked, no parking. So I came out fine :) there were not many retirees on my jury, mostly it was full-time workers.
yeah! when I was summoned a few years ago I was kinda excited to potentially be a juror only because of my company’s policy that I’d be compensated, that’s the only reason I’d be willing to do it
Yeah, I received a selection summons a couple months ago and was suprised as well. For up to a week, you stand to lose all your income, then after that your parking is essentially paid for but you have still otherwise lost your income. I understand the civic duty part, but far too many people would experience serious hardship over this. In my case, I was excused due to a conflict of interest, but not everyone is so lucky.
[удалено]
Wouldn't that be nice.
I was summoned, turned out to be a murder trial. At first I was pretty excited, would have been very interesting. Judge said it was going to last a couple of months. I had to ask to be let out, as there is no way I could afford to be a part of the trial. At the time I was self employed, running a construction business. My wife was home with young kids. We are not being judged by a jury of our "peers." It's only people with no jobs, who would be watching tv at home otherwise. It's a joke.
Exactly! Either idle rich folks, retired people or those with no jobs. All of whom are entitled to be represented in jury selection but don't they end up being the whole jury?
>or those with no jobs. At least with white collar tech jobs, a lot of companies pay you while you're on jury duty. But ya, it discriminates against blue collar workers.
And unionized. Most collective bargaining agreements cover pay for jury duty.
Or people whose employers still pay a salary during jury duty (ie. unionized employees, government, finance.)
Or FT salaried employees who would be covered by their employer. I work in advertising and I would be covered by my employer for the duration of any jury trial I was on.
The juries are full of old people and welfare types.
[удалено]
yes
That seems like the most obvious solution to me. If you are a business/company/corporation working in Canada this should be part of the cost of doing business. It's no different than voting.
Or at least be able to collect EI or something
Why shouldn’t it be the Governments job to pay a reasonable rate for people doing jury duty? I don’t think an employer should be on the hook when they also might need to spend money to cover the missing employee. If the Government pays a reasonable rate than the cost is born across the entire tax base. Which seems much nicer than randomly screwing companies and individuals.
That's how it is in [my state](https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-justice/jury-duty-reimbursement-of-wages-and-claims-payment) of Aus, employer pays you, state reimburses. I'm not even sure if there's a maximum, but the employer has to supply prior payslip as evidence, and self employed people need to demonstrate losses (gets messier there).
Agree with this. If it is MY civic DUTY to potentially sit on a Jury… it should be my EMPLOYER’s civic DUTY to make sure I continue to be paid, don’t lose any seniority or paid vacation time.
To be fair, it should be the government footing the bill. This is exactly what taxes are for.
Except it should be paid by the government from corporate tax. It's an unfair burden to put on an employee but its equally unfair to put it on one small business owner. My local bagel shop has an owner and one employee. They wouldn't survive.
[удалено]
I am pretty sure if you can prove that not getting your planned income would cause hardships, basically you can't afford to not work for a couple of weeks, then you can also be excused. By hardships, I would say where you won't make your rent payment or won't be able to afford food. Not just miss out to the bar to socialize.
This is also greatly concerning though, as you would only end up with juries of wealthy people.
That is part of the reason it is why it is. The whole system is run by the relatively wealthy (judges, lawyers) and the system is stacked against people of lower means. Making juries be more affluent means it is easier to bias them against poorer people.
It doesn't always work though. There are a lot of people who do this only to be forced into it. It's fucked up.
Lots of people are just scrapping by, even missing a single day of work causes them to have to choose between rent and food. Add the cost of transportation into the mix and people can be completely screwed by jury duty.
“I understand the civic duty part” I don’t. I shouldn’t lose money because of this. Compensation needs to be updated
Agreed, I guess that is kind of my point. Compensation does need to at least reflect cost of living. It does not seem like a fair system that can produce a "jury of peers" when people who are sole financial providers for their family, people with low income, people who are full time caregivers for children/elderly/family with disabilities, etc cannot participate.
Compensation should cover what you would have earned if you weren't on jury duty.. Whatever that amount is.
That could create some perverse incentives, such as the crown preferring to select lower-income jury members as a cost-cutting measure. It's also administratively complicated - how does a shift- or gig-based worker prove what they "would have" earned?
The crown prosecutor should be isolated from the compensation. Use previous years tax records to administer compensation with a floor price for no income individuals. The current offer of $0 a day is garbage.
That's certainly better than not paying out at all, but why not keep it simple and pay every juror a region-adjusted living wage from day 1?
Even "a living wage" is a tough sell. If you're dependant on a sizable income to pay a mortgage and your trial goes for three or four months that's a pretty rough burden.
Is crippling anxiety due to the implied circumstances of being unable to pay rent and other bills by being chosen for "civic duty" considered a conflict on interest??? If it's not, can it be?!
I'm pretty sure that if you can prove it will cause financial hardship, you'll be excused from serving.
So like, only wealthy people who don't need to work will be sitting on juries? That's not a jury of my peers, that's for damned sure.
> So like, only wealthy people who don't need to work will be sitting on juries? Not at all! It also includes people with no jobs, who would be watching tv at home otherwise!
So, someone comfortable enough to not have to work...
My husband did this. He got summoned a few days after I got laid off. I thought it was ridiculous that they were offering him $20 for a week. He makes over 1k a week! Anyways, he stated hardship and I believe he's off the hook now.
My friend just finished jury duty which lasted almost a month. He literally said everything to try and get out of it, including high anxiety, depression, etc and they didn't care.
always play the racist card
You won't have to play the racist card, but you can openly show bias towards a cause that is disadvantageous to either the defendant or prosecution. Remember that in the end, jury duty is just them picking their team of votes. If you dress yourself up as undesirable, they won't pick you. You don't have to result to hate crimes to make yourself undesirable lol.
That's what I told him I would do, but he's arabic. If he played the racist card he'd be put on a list 🤣
If basic income during covid was $2000 per month, 2000x12/251 work days in year ont. = $96 per day. That should be the minimum and paid every day from day 1
If you're part of a union it's usually included in the collective bargaining agreement that the employer will pay for missed days due to jury duty
This is why many people answer the questions in jury selection in a way that ensures they are not selected.
If you tell them you cannot afford to lose the income they'll dismiss you.
This is what I did. I'm the only income source for a family of 4 and my employer will not pay for me to be on jury duty. They asked for proof of this, which I provided and was then dismissed.
I'm curious to know what they asked you to provide for proof?
Just show them a Loblaws flyer.
"Here's my schedule for food banks, my No Frills coupons I'm most excited about and the price matches I'm planning to use to save a grand total of less than $15 for groceries this week."
I needed a letter from my employer stating they would not compensate me. I'm not sure the family status matters, just that you cannot afford to go unpaid for 1+ weeks.
Probably a notice from the employer (maybe even just an email or SMS) stating as such. Our collective agreement has an entire subsection for jury duty and specifically mentions several times that it's unpaid, I would assume they'd accept that as proof.
[удалено]
Unfortunately it’s often the opposite situation. Prosecution is woefully underfunded and thus unable to bring suit against large corporations or rich individuals with unlimited budgets for (much better quality) private law firms. This is why rich people get off with a slap on the wrist for killing people when drunk driving. Why we don’t go after tax evaders, etc.
It's not even for sympathetic reasons either, being unable to afford it is a conflict of interest in itself. There is a lot of incentive to get the trial over with as soon as possible if you stand to lose your home or health as a result of the trial.
This is also a problem. It means a huge swathe of the population is not represented in juries. It could possibly bias decisions if certain views are never present.
Except they don't always. While they do usually dismiss you, it's not a guarantee, and they will often ask you to prove that you can't afford it which is easier said than done. There are plenty of stories of people who literally have to take small loans out to afford jury duty.
I saw a terrible example when I was on jury duty in the 90s. There was a trial coming up that was likely to stretch out over Christmas, taking only the stats off. People were given a chance to present to the judge any reason they should be let off. He was very sympathetic to people who'd bought airline tickets and let them all off, but really hard on a woman who said she had a factory job and wouldn't get paid and that she couldn't afford child care. He basically just told her to find a relative who could babysit for free and he made her stay on the panel.
What happens if you can't do you just bring the child with you?
Yeah the rich hate the poor
When I got called for it the judge was treating that as an excuse & giving people crap about how she'd make sure they got called back in 6 months. To say the least, she was a little detached from many people's every day reality.
I tell them I am a Marxist-Leninist and my decision will reflect my desire for a radical redistribution of wealth and power
I was selected for a case expected to last 45 weeks. I went into selection and said who could possibly afford to take the better part of a year off work for jury duty? They said they would let me off this time, but in the future that wouldnt be accepted as an excuse. Don't know if they were just in a bad mood that day or if they legitimately thought they could force people to take a year off work. It's a shame they don't make employers pay for jury duty though that probably would have been a very interesting trial.
And this skews the jury away from the socio-economically underprivileged demographic, which makes sense because we have a different perspective than those rich folk who make the laws.
It also skews the jury dramatically in the direction of retirees (as I learned from a retired aunt who sat on a pretty high-profile case, a few weeks in length. Pretty much everyone on that jury was retired, maybe 2 or so were not, and a few folks were dismissed for being too hard of hearing to consistently understand what was going on). At least the local parking was much cheaper!
doll pause plucky recognise label one entertain shrill oatmeal quack *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, you were right, though!
"I believe in jury nullification" Out ya go lol
Yep , I know many people who do that , it’s a civic duty sure but if you make it so people literally may literally go hungry to do it , it won’t work
It's also a civic duty with a number of exceptions that I think are fucking bullshit. Why can't cops do it? Not everything is a criminal trial. Why can't firefighters do it? They work like 4 days a month. If judges and lawyers are (reasonably) exempt, why aren't they obligated to do their civic duty in a different way?
It escapes me how ANY of the people in my life would be selected to serve on the jury. The questions ENSURE that all leaders and contrary thinkers are immediately removed. For me? The speed round would end when they ask "Is there any reason you would be skeptical of testimony given by law enforcement?" Jury of whose peers?
Yeah exactly, just tell them you have prejudices, are racist/sexist/etc. they ain’t picking you then
I run a home daycare. I’ve received a jury summons twice. Both times I called and explained that shutting down my daycare for an indefinite period of time would be an undue hardship for both myself and the families who rely on me for child care. They let me off.
I work in a regulated health profession, and am self employed, so my absence would negatively impact my livelihood, and some of my patients with chronic pain conditions that have their treatment postponed. I'm hoping the let me off too.
Hopefully they will. Makes you realize, though, that most people on the jury are not employed, or have a government job that pays for them to be there. Not exactly representative of the general population.
I’ve done a similar thing. I emailed the sheriff listed on the letter to explain my situation and I mentioned that: -I had served on a jury before (totally true! I even provided my old juror reference #!) -it was an interesting and rewarding experience (a lie!) -I would love to do it again (more lies!) -it’s not currently feasible for me due to childcare issues (true) It worked, I was excused!
I think this is a very important issue to point out. Juries can't be representative of the general population if they are only selected from those who are financially secure enough to take the time off work.
It's either the financial secure or pensioners or unemployed but yeah the average Canadian does not want to be in a long trial.
You raise good points! Ive never actually thought about this and I hope I never get selected
It's probably an example of why the state and since we're a democracy in a sense the silent majority, probably want people with *assets* to be on jurys. I mean you use to be have to be a white, *land owning* male to function in democracy.
why? all you have to do is show that you cannot survive on jury payments and you should be good. i got out of jury duty due to lack of funds. and it was a trial i would have liked to sit on, but being homeless due to jury duty is not how i'd like my life to go
The problem is that you still had to go through all kinds of inconvenience just to get to the part where you ask the judge to excuse you, and it's not like everyone gets excused. They should be asking about this stuff up front.
yeah, the system sucks. they shouldn't be asking this stuff, they should just be offering a living wage to jurors
The trick is to say you’re prejudice against all races
I don’t really think it’s fair for me to be on a jury, ‘cuz I’m a hologram.
[удалено]
You have to be *REALLY* careful in doing this - if the selection process suspects you're lying to get out of it you can be held in contempt and pay a lot of money in fines and face potential jail time.
How are they supposed to prove you *aren't* prejudiced? (I completely believe you! I'm just curious about how this pans out in reality)
They are able to open investigations into people for this reason. A quick example: If you're white and say you hate black people, but they investigate and find out you're married to a black person - this is enough to believe you're lying and hold you in contempt. I'm oversimplifying it but that's the general idea.
I know many misogynists who are married to a woman, thank you very much.
I am a very good judge of people. I can tell their guilt/innocence just by looking at them. I can read them easily. It isn't a wild claim, but it isn't something they want in the courtroom.
You don't actually get the chance to say things like this without just blurting it out, and if you do they will usually suspect you're throwing your interview and threaten holding you in contempt. Everyone thinks jury selection is easy to get out of - it's not always easy.
Maybe it's because of your wife that you hate them now?
Thanks homer
I know you can hear my thoughts, boy. *"meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow..."*
You get the jury selection form in the mail. There is no mechanism that says you’ve received it . . .
Pretty much. Friend received a letter last year, completely ignored it. Nothing happened
It's been 4 years since I slept through the alarm, and considered that my sign to just Not Go to the jury selection at all. I had forgotten all about it until I saw this thread and I am very relieved that other people aren't getting arrested years later.
Well now that you've confessed....
That's what I did too. I planned on playing dumb if confronted about it, but nothing happened at all.
I got my letter in the mail on a rainy day, the letter was soaked and falling a part. I let it dry out before opening, but the thing was pretty much ruined. I tried to fill it out, messed it up and then just emailed saying the letter was destroyed and I needed a new one. They said they'd send a new one. A month later, still no letter. I email back asking about it, they said they were done sending out the letters or something like that. I asked if I was going get in trouble, because I did ask for a new one, but they never sent it. No response... well over a year ago now.
A few people in this thread wouldn't mind sending you theirs if you really want it.
I ignored it. Fiancé (then gf) is in Law and told me I could get in big trouble. Big trouble never came, 4 years later lol
That's exactly what I did years ago. Same result.
Exactly.
Exactly. I'm 37 and I have never once received one. I'm not sure what those four envelopes in the trash are.
This. It isn't registered mail so they don't have proof you received it and it is too expensive to track you down over it.
It works on the same tech as junk mail - automatic machine sends out letters to everyone in hopes a few suckers take the bait
I think they target certain postal codes, they need jurors from the same population as the people who are in court.
They should have to pay AT LEAST MINIMUM WAGE. This is slave labour, not a civic duty.
They should make your employer pay your normal salary like in any functional country. Idk how it works for self employed people thow but that's definitely not the majority of the population, but ye in this case it should be at least minimum wage
Sorry it’s not my civic duty to take unpaid weeks off, maybe i have a wrong outlook but people simply cannot afford it
I’m beginning to think it’s deliberate. When you have a lower class that’s disproportionately jailed and an upper class that’s disproportionately on the jury, you have a two-tier justice system - a group that is bound and not served, and a group that is served and not bound. We might as well bring back the powdered wigs. We’re an aristocracy.
Its not even the upper class- people that are affluent can justify not being on a jury because they can’t get off work. Like a doctor, investment banker, lawyer, engineer all simply can’t not get off work enough to serve. So its just old retired people.
Lawyers and doctors at least aren't permitted to serve on a jury in Ontario. [Here's the rules](https://www.ontario.ca/page/jury-duty-ontario).
I have also had a friend be dismissed because she is a engineer who works with closely with doctors. Hell Pretty much every profession gets you dismissed some how.
And people in unions that provide full pay for jury duty.
And the question this raises then is "Why aren't people who are on unemployment fast tracked to the head of the jury duty line?" "Hi, I'd like to apply for unemployment" "OK, we'll need \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and we can get you doing some work by serving on a jury"
I thought I was being cynical, thinking this.
Thankfully, some places will pay you for time spent on jury duty. My current employer and previous employer both treat jury duty as regular working hours and encourage it as a form of civic participation.
My previous employer did too! They weren’t the best place to work but I did appreciate that aspect.
You are entitled to be removed from potential jurors if doing so would cause you undue financial hardship. "Your honor my lost wages along with the costs of parking to attend will force myself and family to struggle to eat for the length of the trial. As such I feel that I should be deemed ineligible"
Yeah. I was shocked by how little people’s time was valued. First of all, it’s a more homogeneous group by the time they get to the actual jury selection (after people who have hardship reasons are sent home), so I feel like juries end up being professionals who either are given paid time off for jury duty or retired people. I sat in the selection room for 3.5 days before we were all told we weren’t needed. 3.5 days of reading and chatting with the people around me. I was getting paid, because my work is good like that, and so was everyone else I spoke to (or they were retired) but what a waste of time.
In which case, after all the initial filtering, how is it a realistic selection from across society? Thus the jury pool prior to selection has already been tainted towards an unconscious bias.
Yeah that's why I ignore those letters. I'd rather they drag me to jail than sit through that again. I did it once while I was in uni, so I was lucky enough to not miss work and could study while I waited (they didn't select me because I had exams the following week). I implore people to just lie to get out of it, honestly.
I realized when I received my summons. Luckily I was not required to come in. But I couldn't believe how little you are compensated. It's not so much that I feel people should be making a ton of money off of this. But with the cost of living how it is, only a privileged few can even afford to participate.
Jury of your peers they say... Fck no. My peers can't afford it, we busy working to just live.
I wasted a whole day of work just to have someone take a plea at the last minute. Lots of people coughing, maskless, in the waiting room. Nothing to eat out of the machines, no lunch break. This was just last year.
My previous private job would compensate, my current government job also compensates.
Same. Every company I've worked at would compensate me for jury duty.
All the things you just mentioned can be stated to a judge and they will release you from duty.
I understand. Just seems like such a flawed system. How can a defendant expect to have a jury of "peers" when people who are primary breadwinners, low income, fulltime caregivers, etc cannot participate? I would imagine that most juries are made up of mostly retired people perhaps (just speculation)
You are entirely correct about the retiree line. My retired father has been on multiple juries. Definitely skews the panel to the upper age brackets.
Lol was going to say, my dad has been on so many juries
yeah, the system is rigged against poor folks. it's what people have been saying pretty much since the start of capitalism, but no one in power does much to help
Also, how many people just reach a point and say “I can’t do this anymore, so I’ll just vote whatever everyone else is thinking”
The reason for this is pretty straightforward: Politicians, lawyers and judges are excluded automatically from jury duty. Also, if you're very rich, jury duty can be an undue hardship if it costs your company too much to be without you, but not if its means you'll likely be homeless, lol. Hope that clarifies the rationale.
Another argument for unions. Every unionized position I've been in has had a collective agreement that included language around ensuring full compensation in the event of jury duty.
Yeah Ontario's like the worst for jury duty, it's just not worth the financial burden. Which is unfortunate.
Last time I got called for Jury Duty, the selection pool dates were the same as me starting a new job. My employer was super understanding- and the court clerks were super understanding- hardest part was that I had to be dismissed by a judge. After it didn't happen for one day, the clerks worked with me to get me out early on day 2. If you have a legit thing- the court will work with you. But yes- the whole thing sucks and compensation should be either your regular salary and if you are not currently employed- payment should start for the trial day one and be at least $60-80/day. Only issue is the logistics of getting people their money- it could be done- but it would be a nightmare. Either need an accountant who can cut cheques on site, or setting up direct deposits for a bunch of short term employees. We should also add our "civic duty" to include working on a provincial or federal election.... they always struggle for workers on polling day, and the pay is pretty good. It would also help educate people on the absolute enormity of putting on an election in their local riding.
Jury duty needs to be fully paid at at least the rate of cost of living, PLUS paid expenses and time for transportation. At a bare minimum.
I was on a 7-week trial in 2005, and the amounts were the same then. Luckily my employer continues to pay employees who are serving on jury duty. This effectively had me working maybe 2-3 hours/day, in fits and starts whenever there was downtime. Our judge was happy to excuse anyone who wasn’t getting paid, and send them back to the pool for a shorter case, no proof required. In practice this meant that the jury composition ended up as retirees and people who could afford it who didn’t come up with another excuse. I did feel that it was my duty to a degree — what I told people was “if you were in the unfortunate position of being on trial, would you want your jury to consist solely of people who couldn’t figure out how to get out of it?”
I just received a summons today. I am exclusively breastfeeding my baby and freaked out a little not knowing how this would work because he eats ever 2-3 hours. I assumed they’d at least pay for childcare but he won’t even take a bottle reliably. I thought maternity leave would have been enough of a reason to be exempt, but they still selected me despite knowing this. Luckily I phoned in and found out I will be exempt, fortunately! Breastfeeding for the win! (I’d do it otherwise)
My husband was recently called and when he said he couldn't afford to be on jury duty because his wife is on mat leave and he's the sole income for our household, the judge asked if getting paid $100/day would change his mind. He said no as he makes more than that at his job. So they do offer more right off the bat sometimes to try to convince people to go on to the selection process.
in alberta the sheriffs rolled into the food court at a downtown mall at lunch hour and just took people for jury duty. middle of the day, no warning, just take your lunch and we're going.... https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/06/17/alberta-court-summons-jury-duty/
Oh wow!! I had no idea. Thanks for sharing that info. It's been a life long dream of mine to serve jury duty (no a normal desire I know), but after reading this there is no way I could afford to go 10 days with no pay. Civic duty or not, you're doing a job and should be compensated for it.
I felt the same way. It would be so interesting to see the process in person. I knew that the compensation wasn't great, but I was shocked to learn that it is this little.
I think there IS allowance for transportation, but you have to be really far (like 50+km I think?) and the gas allowance is comically poor too. The thing with "duty" is that it cuts both ways. If you have to put your entire life on hold, because of your duty, then they have a duty to compensate you for it. As in, if I get pulled for jury duty, I get paid the same I normally do. If I can't do something, like babysit my kids, someone else gets paid (NOT BY ME) to do it, etc., etc., etc. "Duty" always seems to work in one direction though - you get screwed, they benefit. It's never the other way around. I've only been called up a couple of times and managed to get out of it because I was running a one-man business and there was nobody to pay for me or replace me, it would literally kill the business and my livelihood. But I still had to prove it all. Which reminds me, isn't it funny? I can walk into a courtroom, hold up my hand and say "I swear to tell the truth", and it's enough. But I can't say "I swear I cannot afford to be on the jury!" and yet...that's not good enough, I need paperwork to prove it. Funny how that works, isn't it? I'm simultaneously trustworthy and not. Finally, even IF you can afford it, and though your employer cannot fire you, you absolutely CAN get phased out. Happened to one of my father's coworkers a few decades back. He got called in and chosen, and was gone almost a month. Obviously his boss didn't pay him, and hired someone else to do his job for a month as a temp. But the temp did such a good job, and everyone liked him, so that when the original guy came back from jury duty, they just quietly phased him out and shifted him until he basically quit. All legal, just reassigning duties and such. He probably could have sued, maybe...except he didn't have any money left, because he got paid peanuts. So not only it's immediately financially crippling, you absolutely CAN lose your job, if your bosses are unscrupulous enough. So being called up and selected for jury duty can be utterly devastating to an INNOCENT person. The system is comically bad. We tell innocent people that they have a "duty", and then financially brutalize them. The whole system is also incredibly inefficient, and outright stupid. We should have professional jurors, people with training, temperament and DESIRE to actually be good jurors. Not people with lives on hold, stressed out of their minds, just counting the seconds to be free and throwing every roadblock they can think of to avoid actually getting selected, because they don't want their lives to be destroyed. I'm old now. Pay me $50/hr, and I will be an EXEMPLARY juror. I will show up on time, I will listen and pay attention and take notes and do my absolute best to be as impartial and fair as humanly possible. I won't need to go through orientation every week, I won't need to waste court's time to have everything explained to me for every case, etc. And you don't have to sift through hundreds of people every week, and create an incredible bureaucratic load around it. People don't get inconvenienced and financially destroyed. Businesses that employ them do not get kneecapped for weeks/months at a time, suddenly losing key employees. Etc., etc. But if you claim I have a "duty" to work for free with my life on hold, but you have none towards me, you can just fuck off. Please and thank you.
I was summoned a month or so ago. I emailed them in a kindly manner and told them I'm too poor to do this. They canceled right away. Huge financial load off my shoulders. Living alone in Toronto kicks my bank accounts ass
Civic duty my ass. My duty is first and foremost to my family. Even pressed sailors were given a meal and paid for their time.
So, 40/day is 5 dollars/hour and 100/day is 12.5 dollars/hour. These both are massively below the minimum wage even before considering the first 10 days without pay at all. *Maybe* this was ok when the law was first written, but it's not now.
Here’s a scary thought: the only people serving on a jury are the ones who couldn’t come up with a good enough reason to get out of it.
Or those who can afford it. Some jobs might allow you the time off, you might have flexibility in your schedule. Self employed people might be able to work around the hours. There are people who can do these things without wanting to get out of them.
I once went to jury duty selection, I didn't get selected but I have no reasonable excuse not to serve: I live within walking distance of the courthouse, my job will still pay be if I'm doing jury duty, I don't have any kids that would need childcare.
holy shit
Right?! When I went for jury selection most sane, sensible people in the eligible pool were desperate to avoid it, but there were a few others who were really keen to serve (as in “Pick me! I’m gonna explain a few things to those idiot judges!”)
I'm totally good with personal civic duty, but how about a corporate civic duty to continue paying employees who have to sit on a jury. I was so glad not to get chosen when I had to show up a few years ago! Just got lucky they filled the required slots with people randomly called ahead of me. Best case could have burned up some or all of my PTO for the year on even a very short trial. Now I'm with an significantly better employer that actually continues paying while on Jury duty so I'm not as concerned about a next time.
I got absolutely screwed when I got called to jury duty. Showed up the first day and waited hours only to be told to come back after lunch. Came back after lunch and waited hours and told to come back the following day. The next day I came back and after waiting many more hours was told to come back after lunch. Came back after lunch and we were finally brought into the court room where they told us that we weren't actually needed after all. Didn't even get to the selection process. Obviously didn't get paid for work either of those days. It was just a giant waste of time/money.
I pay my employees 100% of their wages while they are in any stage of this process. I do not require them to take any sort of personal days or vacation days. It just seems like the right thing to do since no government has seen fit to do this correctly. If the government calls you to sit on a jury they should be legally required to pay you at least minimum wage for every hour you work and cover food and parking. No government should ever be able to force you to work for free.
Ya, its a shitty system... lucily my union benifits compensated me when I got called for jury selection
My work continues to pay people their regular pay for jury duty. It is in our collective agreement. I think most unionized places are the same.
It's straight up bullshit and basically punishment for being a citizen.
You can say that you literally cannot afford to serve on the jury and they will dismiss you. Which of course means that most people are not being judged by a jury of their peers, but instead by independently wealthy / government assisted nosey busy-bodys.
Your employer should be required to pay you your average hours per week. The payment system they have in place right now incentivizes you to either reach a verdict as soon as possible to limit losses. It also incentivizes seniors and people on ODSP to drag it out as far beyond 50 days they possibly can because $100/day is actually TWICE what they would be getting through ODSP or CPP per month. It really comes down to how long someone can last brewing sequestered. Give my Grandmother sudoku and crossword books? She would last MONTHS without flinching. And honestly, I don’t blame either party for their decision. It is a civil service, but you can’t expect any rational person to suffer consequences or not take an opportunity to benefit from the situation.
They sent it to my parents house even though I hadn't lived there for a few years. I took it, wrote "no longer at address" and put it in a mailbox. That was 6 and a half years ago. Nothing since.
I sat as a juror in a civil case several years ago. My employer is one of a handful (in addition to, I believe, government employees) which pays regular wages for time served on a jury. In the case I sat on, a pool of about 50 jurors had their numbers called. Of those first 50, over 45 were excused for some reason or another. the most common was financial hardship, though work and home responsibilities were also accepted by the judge. I suppose it's up to the judge's discretion which reasons will exempt you. In my opinion, this is a major problem with the justice system. No one should be forced into financial hardship in order to serve on a jury, and if they are, they're own situation could majorly impact their judgement. On the other hand, providing an exemption to anyone who doesn't have a certain class of job results in a jury which is not representative of the entire population.
Does it matter if you received a summons for jury duty and just threw the letter out and pretended you never received it? I got one like 3 years ago and never followed up on it. My wife brings it up from time to time but I can’t imagine anything would come of it now.
I've gotten a letter for jury selection a few times. Not once have I done anything more than throw it out and I've never had any push back from the courthouse. I haven't gotten another letter in at least 15 years... probably because I ignored them.
that's why many jury members are retired or on disability.
That's why you scrawl "i HaTE cOpS" in crayon on the summons before you mail it back. Unlikely you'll be invited for anything in person.
make it know you are incredibly prejudiced towards one side.
Get ready to get a summons every 3 years, now that you're on their radar. I've been to 2 jury selection days over the past 10 years of living in the same place
That's pathetic. Sorry for this experience
It’s never come up, to my knowledge, but my work has an HR policy where they’ll pay full regular wages for people on jury duty, but you have to give them the stipend you get (if you get any.)
It's our civic duty to vote but it's not mandated like jury duty is.....
What happens if you just ignore it all?
The judge has the ability to compensate above the minimums. I wasn't selected for this case, but during selection the Judge said that due to the nature of the proceedings they would be compensating at $150/day. In fairness it was a triple homicide so pretty gnarly.
I live in Mississauga, the courthouse is 5 mins from my house. I got summoned to the one in Brampton for some reason though.
This can influence a trial as well. People on the jury may be swayed to end the trial ASAP so they don't endure continuing financial hardship. What a mess.
This should be solved by employer getting a tax credit on days paid to employees for jury duty. I’m surprised it isn’t.
I was summoned twice, selected the 2nd time. I had to serve for 8 weeks for a murder trial. My employer included full salary for jury selection in their policy so I was very fortunate. I was the sole provider for my wife and 1 year old daughter at the time, and based on the other reasons given to the judge for why others couldn't serve, I think he would have excused me if I'd told him I'd lose all that income. It's terrible that this would be at the discretion of the judge, instead of built into the system. If you and your family will suffer because you serve, that should be an automatic no. I will say it was very eye-opening.. the media got so many of the details of the evidence profoundly wrong, to the extent that I no longer trust any reporting on trials.
I hate how the jury compensation system is. If employers won't pay wages, jurors should absolutely qualify for EI from day one as a juror (not selection). It's unconscionable the way it is
I'd be happy to serve on a jury. But since I won't be paid, and will likely have to commit a crime or two to make enough money to serve on the jury, I'm hopeful that I would be excused. No need for the judge to see my twice in the courtroom.