Skipping jury duty draws a $1000 maximum fine in New Zealand. If the typical trial lasts a fortnight (pure guess on my part here), it would cost more to avoid jury duty, as a per-day charge, than avoiding serving in the Civil War. Jury duty would suck, but not nearly as bad as being in the army during the Civil War.
And so I have another modest proposal. Apply provisions from the Enrollment Act to current jury service. Let people hire an alternate or pay a set rate to avoid it altogether.
Why is this a crime?
If you could opt-out of the Civil War draft, why can't you opt-out of jury duty? Note that it was the Confederacy that didn't allow the use of substitutes. The Union were the good guys, right? We don't want to be like the bad guys, do we?This year, Auckland engineering consultant James McAllister drew widespread attention after a judge found him guilty of contempt of court for his refusal to sit on a jury in the Auckland District Court because he was busy at work. His sentence of 10 days in prison was subsequently reduced on appeal to a fine of $750."I think it's the very thing we might be looking for in Wellington," criminal procedure expert associate professor Bill Hodge, of Auckland University, said. "I'm sure it would get a lot of attention and publicity, and people might take it seriously. It would educate and it would be a wake-up call."Kiwis should seize the opportunity to contribute to the justice system, Prof Hodge said.
* Enrollment Act 1863, war ended just over two years later.
I don't have statistics, but a typical trial would be 1-3 days. A very small percentage would last longer than 5 days.
ReplyDeleteSo that's then a $500 per day fee, plus the hassles of being charged with contempt instead of just getting to buy a "get out" ticket. Ekh.
ReplyDeleteI see that the Enrollment Act led to issues with substitutes being of a poorer quality than other recruits. I also see that the Act was amended to limit the 'get out' ticket to one year and then if you were redrafted you then either needed to provide a substitute or front yourself.
ReplyDeleteIsn't one of the corner stones of the justice system that you can be judged by a jury of your peers? Whatever the current issues with jury selection I don't see how this makes it better. Surely you want a wide selection of the population in the jury pool not just a bunch of retirees and rent-a-plebs?
I'm no longer self-employed, but when I was, I enquired about insurance that would pay me my average daily income in the event that I was selected for jury duty. Unfortunately, no such insurance exists. I bet that a lot more people would be happy serving if it didn't involve such a drastic drop in income for a potentially long period of time. Also, I'd be interested in extending jury duty to court staff, except that they would need to offer their services pro bono to community organisations for random period of between 1 day and 6 weeks instead of actually serving on a jury.
ReplyDeleteWhere would you draw the line; what sorts of obligations (either positive or negative, ie obligations not to do this or that) do you think people should /not/ be able to buy their way out of?
ReplyDeleteLove your ideas here. I think the real problem with jury service is the incredible inefficiency of the court system. For a jury of 12 people, the drag in about 80 possible jurors, make them wait for an amazing amount of time, while the court itself fluffs around. If a person knew for certain that if they turned up they would serve on the jury and that the trial would operate efficaciously, i dont think people would mind. And in this day and age the jury selection could all take place in the "cloud" without people wasting their time. In the several jury trials I have been called to there is more time mucking around for morning teas and lunch and general admin than there is spent of the issues at stake. A case of incentives, since this time wasting presumably pays well for the lawyers and is safer than actually patrolling for the police
ReplyDeleteReading the lines I see in 2011 259 fatal accidents and 8 of these 'alcohol offenders'.
ReplyDeleteThat means 251 fatals were not alcohol 0.8 or above.
Almost as though there were other factors involved in fatal accidents.
Been trying to get on the jury for years, but they won't take me, I said you don't have to pay me, they said its ok you can go home
ReplyDeleteThe other way to view the new policy is as a crude way to transfer property rights in the absence of a Coasian market for the externality caused by drunk drivers. It's not efficient, but transfers utility to children - a pro family policy!
ReplyDeleteSure, but the usual rule is that you want to allocate the right to minimise losses. Will need to see whatever Treasury's done on this (or MoT) to see what weight they put on loss of consumption benefits among those who'd have driven safely in the .05-.08 range.
ReplyDeleteSo what are the arguments to allow anyone to defer/exempt themselves from jury duty (other than parent with small child)?
ReplyDeleteI can see a high monetary cost to those who are on higher income but they are also the people with most to gain from the rule of law.
If there was a very high probability that you had to serve if called, I suspect that it would be easy to come up with actuarially fair insurance (it is a random draw from a pool of known size after all) and there would be a larger market.
It might also force the inefficiencies to be resolved (many of which are only inefficient if you think that the system is supposed to minimise juror hassle rather than minimise bias and corruption)
I was called twice and received deferment. Each time they wanted me during the week of classes before the exam, so we'd have lost the final lecture and exam prep session. HoD wrote a letter noting that that kinda screwed up the whole course, and they deferred.
ReplyDeleteI like your "we should be able to insure against this" angle. Nice point. How I wish for Arrow-Debreu worlds.
Are you going to also calculate the benefits to other road users of driving on roads that are safer because there are fewer people driving drunk. (I am optimistically making the assumption that a law change will actually lead to some behavior changes among drunk drivers). Because I know that I would be a happier person on the roads knowing there were fewer idiots sharing it with me. And thats got to be worth something.
ReplyDeleteThat's already in there: it's the value of the reduction in crashes.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure? The article says that "we save $20m per year in social costs of crashes. And that would be the benefit" But I am suggesting that even without crashes there is a cost in the form of worry and stress for other drivers (or their parents). I suspect that more people would use cars at certain times if our roads were safer. So there is also foregone utility in the equation.
ReplyDeleteAs VMC points out, other road users gain utility from knowing they're less likely to be hit by a drunk driver. Your calculations don't (and possibly can't) account for that.
ReplyDelete@Jack, @VMC: Suppose we have a dangerous stretch of road with lots of curves, inadequate fencing, and all that mess. When MoT goes to reckon Cost-Benefit on straightening that out, it counts the reduced travel time and reduced crashes as benefit but doesn't assess the reduced stress consequent to it. Where stress is proportionate to crash and commuting costs across different policies that might reduce crashes and commuting costs, then adding it in for some kinds of policies but ignoring it for others seems likely to push relatively too much of the kinds of policies that count those benefits relative to those that don't. If we're going to count it, it has to be counted across all potential roading interventions to see if they pass muster.
ReplyDeleteAgree with all that, though I think an intervention of this type is different to a road works type change. The MOT do ther CBS on the understanding that they have alternative ways to spend the same $$. In that sense a law change of this type has no alternative uses, although parliamentary time is a scarse resource.
ReplyDeleteFine. Say then that MoT has a dozen potential regulatory interventions that reduce accident costs but impose costs on drivers. Banning cell phones from working in cars (as Nick Wilson suggests), requiring that children in child restraints also be restrained with ball-gags to reduce driver distraction, having a system that gives mild electric shocks to the driver if it detects drowsiness (albeit with some false positives), reducing speed limits. There are then alternative ways of imposing cost on the driving public in pursuit of safety benefits. Surely we wouldn't just rule out the private costs in each of these cases.
ReplyDeleteMy only concern about an opt out fee is one of perceived fairness. The fee probably ought to be set sufficiently high that it prevents people who just can't be bothered with the hassle of jury duty from paying their way out. Otherwise every man and his dog will just fork over their $20 (or whatever) and you'd have real problems actually getting a jury formed. So the fee would need to be sufficiently high that there is still an incentive for folk to turn up for selection if they can. I guarantee this will then raise concerns about how this is yet another way for rich folk to pay their way out of societal obligations at the expense of the poor.
ReplyDelete