Why Not Draft?

so what do we about the jury system ?
since jury duty is required of all citizens (i know there are some exceptions) , should it be abolished as a "kind of slavery" (using thomas' term) ?
we could go to a system of "volunteer jurors" ; you'd sign up if you enjoy that kind of work or simply stay away from it .
presumably "volunteer jurors" also might receive a regular paycheque for their work - it would no longer be called a duty , of course .
would that be good for our justice system and the citizens served by it ?
hbg

Sorry to have to say that, but it seems that experiences are very ... narrow.

Do you know that it tooks up to two years - at courts - until you geot accepted as conscientious objector?

Maybe somebody's mentioned this, I'm too idle to check, but the last three or four days on the Doonesbury cartoon have been good.

I believe think there's a generational difference here. When they drafted me and I faced the decision whether to conscientously object, the test of your conscience was whether you were willing to serve a couple of months more. (In my time, 18 months instead of 15 -- the times have since become shorter.) So Bohne is probably right: For some draftees, civil service probably is easier than military service.

But lots of them join the army, 'because they have to', because 'it's better than doing social work instead' (which would be my reason), or because 'it's the easiest way to go'.

However, Bohne argued exactly the other way around:

Bohne wrote:

But lots of them join the army, 'because they have to', because 'it's better than doing social work instead' (which would be my reason), or because 'it's the easiest way to go'.

I think she's right, and I don't see the contradiction. For lots of people, civil service is the easy way to go. For lots of them, the army is. Personalities vary a lot in these matters -- and so does do the specific units you end up serving in.

At the outset, military (or alternate) service and jury duty are not comparable.

I don't see why the two wouldn't be comparable as a matter of principle.

You are right, about jury duty and conscription. Philosophically, they are one and the same.

Thomas wrote:

I don't see why the two wouldn't be comparable as a matter of principle.

One point certainly would be the age limits.

The other one is that jury members certainly have more persons to be excluded by law than conscripts could/would have.

Oh Thomas, you always get me in a "gotcha". You are right, about jury duty and conscription. Philosophically, they are one and the same. I think though that practicality needs to be the overriding concept.

At first I liked your idea of paying jurors a reasonable fee for serving voluntarily on a jury, but when I thought about it, I realized that there are pitfalls. I can just see all the panhandlers and various and sundry other lowlives signing up to be jurors, just to make a few easy bucks. There's gotta be another way!

But how does that make a principal difference, rather than a practical one?

To this, Snood may well respond that a voluntary army isn't practical when the government starts more wars than the people want to fight. Where do you draw the line?

When my brothers are sent off to fight a senseless war, I don't see it as my duty to fight with them, but to try and influence the leaders to get them out of harm's way, save their lives. I consider it an act of patriotism to fight the ones who would get my brothers killed with no better reasoning than that.