Most of you have probably heard some variation on the following: "No 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty can possibly be my peers!"
Am I the only one who finds something wrong with this statement and the sentiment behind it?
I myself have been called for voir dire (jury selection) only once, and was culled out at that stage. I have always looked upon jury service as a rare opportunity to fulfill a civic obligation, see how our justice system works (or doesn't) up close and help maintain the ideal of America as a nation governed by laws rather than by the passions of men. Does this make me horribly naïve? Does everyone look at jury duty as nothing more than a waste of their time, a loss of pay (in some cases) and an inconvenience?
The right to a trial by a jury of one's peers has been considered key to a free and just society and a basic human right at least since the Magna Carta, if not longer. Have we become so selfish, or so cynical about the system, that we as a society no longer see this as being so? Or do we just want it when we're on the business end, but not want any part of it when we get asked to take a seat in the jury box? Your thoughts, please.
![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
telynor and 
