I’ve heard a number of people over the years suggest other systems for the jury system. One person was adamant that we should have professional jurors. I was shocked but didn’t say so. I wanted to hear more about why she thought this way but seemed the only thing she cared about was the disruption to her life. But wouldn’t that be like having a small select group of people who are essentially judges go around judging these things? Would they be elected or would they have the position for life? If they’re elected, then doesn’t that leave us open to them behaving in a way that gets them elected? Is that really in line with our jury system? If you were the plaintiff or defendant, would you want jurors of this kind? I surely wouldn’t.

If they had the position for life, wouldn’t that make them prone to corruption? Maybe not. Most (all?) judges have positions for life. I suppose this situation is workable but I prefer our current system because it seems less corruptible.

In any case, if people know who the jurors are, doesn’t that make them prone to corruption?

Given that only a handful of people knew I was on jury duty and no one knew which trial I was on, no one bothered me. I could make the decision solely on the case. That is hugely important, I think. What else is important is that I sat on this one and I’ve never sat on another one. And I probably won’t sit on another one. Over the course of time, if everyone gets a vote here and there, the end general result would seem to be a very good way to ensure that we get a system pretty close to reflecting the people of this country. I … um … think it’s worth it.