capri pants in court

[Reefgazer]

I wonder what they do with people who have medical conditions that require food or water at specific times (POTS, diabetes).

I've always worn jeans. Most of the others did, too.  I just looked up the info on jury duty in our county and there are no clothing guidelines at all. They do state you can't bring food or drinks or a cell phone or other electronics.  I think they're just happy to have people show up. 

 

[J-rap]

These are the guidelines for my county:

 

Although there are no set rules as to what jurors should wear, your choice of clothing should be comfortable but smart, so as to reflect the importance of the role you are to play in court.

 

I like the sound of "comfortable but smart"!

 

Ours guidelines are:

 

Casual attire is acceptable. Men may wear sport jackets, sport shirts, sweaters and slacks. It is recommended that women wear blouses, sweaters, skirts, pants or dresses. Halters, tank tops, shorts and jeans with exaggerated tears are NOT appropriate. Courtrooms are often cool. You may want to bring a sweater or jacket.

[luuknam]

No shorts, T-shirts, or thong sandals here. 

 

I'm not entirely sure why the court would prefer someone to wear a sweater to cover up their T-shirt and be super distracted by melting from the heat in the process, but w/e. 

[Seeking Squirrels]

Ok, but seriously, how can they set a dress code?  Is one supposed to have a certain social status or income level to be on a jury?  That doesn't seem right to me. 

 

That's what I'm wondering. I had never before considered this but hope it doesn't end up being a problem for me. I wear jeans and t-shirts every day. That's all I own*. If it's cold I wear a zip-up hoodie over said t-shirt. If t-shirts aren't allowed, I have nothing in my wardrobe acceptable. I cannot be the only one to not have anything beyond jeans and t shirts. For me it's because that's what I'm comfortable in, but what about for someone who can't afford anything else? What if somewhat grubby pants and old shirts are all they have? It does seem rather discriminatory. 

 

*Actually, not true. I have a Black Canary cosplay from last comic con. Pretty sure that wouldn't be acceptable, either!

[Bluegoat]

So people with a limited or sub par wardrobe aren't respectful?

 

Maybe I should have been a lawyer. I love to argue.  LOL

 

No, I didn't say anything like that.

 

People who are called to function in the court should, in their choice of clothing, keep in mind their function in the court and its importance in our society.  They are engaged in a weighty task.  They should wear whatever they have that keeps that in mind.  Even if they don't have much.  Even people who only have working clothes like jeans and flannel shirts should generally be able to present themselves clean and neat and without lewd slogans. 

 

Unfourtunatly, it seems like there are always some people who are unwilling to do that and want to push things.  And as a result, we end up with dress codes that are often more restrictive that would be found if people just took the thing seriously in the first place.

[SparklyUnicorn]

No, I didn't say anything like that.

 

People who are called to function in the court should, in their choice of clothing, keep in mind their function in the court and its importance in our society.  They are engaged in a weighty task.  They should wear whatever they have that keeps that in mind.  Even if they don't have much.  Even people who only have working clothes like jeans and flannel shirts should generally be able to present themselves clean and neat and without lewd slogans. 

 

Unfourtunatly, it seems like there are always some people who are unwilling to do that and want to push things.  And as a result, we end up with dress codes that are often more restrictive that would be found if people just took the thing seriously in the first place.

 

This is exactly what you are saying though (it seems to me).  If someone wears what they have and it happens to not be quite up to par, that does not mean they don't take the task seriously. 

 

I don't think anyone should have to go out and buy clothing for this.  Clothing should not be what this is about. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Looked it up here.  It said no cut offs or shorts.  That seems ok.  Except the last part said "etc".  I don't like that kind of wide open vagueness cuz what does "etc" mean? 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

This is exactly what you are saying though (it seems to me).  If someone wears what they have and it happens to not be quite up to par, that does not mean they don't take the task seriously. 

 

I don't think anyone should have to go out and buy clothing for this.  Clothing should not be what this is about. 

 

Um, no, I really didn't.  I said people should be able to wear what they have. 

 

If they present themselves as if they were going to apply for a job they took seriously, that should be fine - whether it is as a fast-food position or as a bricklayer.  So - clean themselves, their clothes, try and wear what is in best repair, tuck in their shirts if applicable, don't wear shirts with questionable slogans.

 

Now, there may be a few people, the homeless for example, who are not even able to clean up, or whose clothing is very poor.  Many of them are not likely to be up for jury duty.

 

The thing is, if people reliably dressed with some awareness, there would be no need to say "no jeans with holes".  The person with a hole in his jeans probably doesn't have another option. 

[Annie G]

I wonder what they do with people who have medical conditions that require food or water at specific times (POTS, diabetes).

 

They probably handle that on a case by case basis.  When they summon us they send a questionnaire that gives us a chance to explain special situations. And if you want to talk about it in person you can always go down and talk to the clerk before you report for duty. They seem to be pretty reasonable when there is a legit special request. The last time I served a farmer was receiving a shipment of baby chicks within the next day or two and asked to be excused to tend to that and they pleasantly agreed. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I wonder what they do with people who have medical conditions that require food or water at specific times (POTS, diabetes).

 

At least in the cases I know of personally, they tend to let people off for medical conditions.  My dad has gone there and told him about his medical problems and they dismissed him right then and there.

[Farrar]

The idea that dressy capris could be excluded while things that a larger number of people (not me, but I think we can acknowledge that some people do) actually find to be unprofessional like mini-skirts and leggings are allowed is just plain absurd. I mean, they wouldn't allow nice capris, but a shirt with somewhat misogynist messaging was okay? Dress codes are so insane. 

[marbel]

Um, no, I really didn't.  I said people should be able to wear what they have. 

 

If they present themselves as if they were going to apply for a job they took seriously, that should be fine - whether it is as a fast-food position or as a bricklayer.  So - clean themselves, their clothes, try and wear what is in best repair, tuck in their shirts if applicable, don't wear shirts with questionable slogans.

 

Now, there may be a few people, the homeless for example, who are not even able to clean up, or whose clothing is very poor.  Many of them are not likely to be up for jury duty.

 

The thing is, if people reliably dressed with some awareness, there would be no need to say "no jeans with holes".  The person with a hole in his jeans probably doesn't have another option. 

 

I think I know what you mean.

 

A person who has limited clothing choices can still look appropriate.  A painter may have only stained work clothes, but they can be clean (stained does not = dirty, kwim?) and as neat as possible.  To me, they will look more appropriate than a person wearing designer jeans that were strategically pre-ripped at the factory.  

 

T-shirts probably means sloppy-looking t-shirts with or without slogans.  I would advise a man to wear any sort of collared shirt, but if a crew-neck t-shirt was all that was available, if it was clean, plain (meaning no slogans or screen-prints), and (if possible) tucked in, it would probably be fine.  I don't think a woman's fitted t-shirt (as a pp mentioned) would be considered the same way.

 

Seems like we've had these conversations before, maybe regarding wedding attire. I don't know, but I think that at one time in the US, people had a sense of what was appropriate to wear in certain circumstances.  I think at one time most people would know not to wear a t-shirt with pictures or slogans on it in a courthouse.   Maybe I'm just basing that on where I lived but it wouldn't have been in an upper-class neighborhood.  I think as we as a culture have become more casual  people are losing that sense. This is just my impression though. As an example, I know a lot of people who wear very casual clothing to church, but they know that "church attire" as a dress code means something different from the shorts and flip-flops they might wear on any Sunday.  But younger people will not know that, if no one is telling them. 

[Pawz4me]

 

Seems like we've had these conversations before, maybe regarding wedding attire. I don't know, but I think that at one time in the US, people had a sense of what was appropriate to wear in certain circumstances.  I think at one time most people would know not to wear a t-shirt with pictures or slogans on it in a courthouse.   Maybe I'm just basing that on where I lived but it wouldn't have been in an upper-class neighborhood.  I think as we as a culture have become more casual  people are losing that sense. This is just my impression though. As an example, I know a lot of people who wear very casual clothing to church, but they know that "church attire" as a dress code means something different from the shorts and flip-flops they might wear on any Sunday.  But younger people will not know that, if no one is telling them. 

 

But what constitutes appropriate dress (for any particular occasion) is a cultural construct. And it's one that has changed fairly rapidly over the past couple of decades. It's changed so much that I'm not convinced "church attire" really has much meaning anymore. It's not a matter of not telling younger people what it means, it's that it really has no set meaning any more. I guess we could put it in historical context, but then the question becomes at what point in history? In my childhood "proper church attire" for men would have absolutely meant a suit and tie. Nothing less would have been considered proper. By the time I was a 20 something it would have meant (perhaps) a dress shirt and tie but not necessarily a suit, especially during the summer. By the time I was a 30 something Dockers and a polo were considered quite proper and acceptable for men at church. I haven't been to a Sunday morning service in a long time but from what I understand things have gotten a lot more casual in most churches (but probably not all).

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think I know what you mean.

 

A person who has limited clothing choices can still look appropriate.  A painter may have only stained work clothes, but they can be clean (stained does not = dirty, kwim?) and as neat as possible.  To me, they will look more appropriate than a person wearing designer jeans that were strategically pre-ripped at the factory.  

 

T-shirts probably means sloppy-looking t-shirts with or without slogans.  I would advise a man to wear any sort of collared shirt, but if a crew-neck t-shirt was all that was available, if it was clean, plain (meaning no slogans or screen-prints), and (if possible) tucked in, it would probably be fine.  I don't think a woman's fitted t-shirt (as a pp mentioned) would be considered the same way.

 

Seems like we've had these conversations before, maybe regarding wedding attire. I don't know, but I think that at one time in the US, people had a sense of what was appropriate to wear in certain circumstances.  I think at one time most people would know not to wear a t-shirt with pictures or slogans on it in a courthouse.   Maybe I'm just basing that on where I lived but it wouldn't have been in an upper-class neighborhood.  I think as we as a culture have become more casual  people are losing that sense. This is just my impression though. As an example, I know a lot of people who wear very casual clothing to church, but they know that "church attire" as a dress code means something different from the shorts and flip-flops they might wear on any Sunday.  But younger people will not know that, if no one is telling them. 

 

Yeah see where I live something like 40% of people are said to not have enough food to eat.  So I'm thinking they probably also don't have an awesome wardrobe. 

 

I think my jeans would be perfectly fine.  I just think, why get hung up on clothing? 

[zoobie]

I think I know what you mean.

 

A person who has limited clothing choices can still look appropriate. A painter may have only stained work clothes, but they can be clean (stained does not = dirty, kwim?) and as neat as possible. To me, they will look more appropriate than a person wearing designer jeans that were strategically pre-ripped at the factory.

 

T-shirts probably means sloppy-looking t-shirts with or without slogans. I would advise a man to wear any sort of collared shirt, but if a crew-neck t-shirt was all that was available, if it was clean, plain (meaning no slogans or screen-prints), and (if possible) tucked in, it would probably be fine. I don't think a woman's fitted t-shirt (as a pp mentioned) would be considered the same way.

 

Seems like we've had these conversations before, maybe regarding wedding attire. I don't know, but I think that at one time in the US, people had a sense of what was appropriate to wear in certain circumstances. I think at one time most people would know not to wear a t-shirt with pictures or slogans on it in a courthouse. Maybe I'm just basing that on where I lived but it wouldn't have been in an upper-class neighborhood. I think as we as a culture have become more casual people are losing that sense. This is just my impression though. As an example, I know a lot of people who wear very casual clothing to church, but they know that "church attire" as a dress code means something different from the shorts and flip-flops they might wear on any Sunday. But younger people will not know that, if no one is telling them.

Even **clean** can be a burden for people. If you're food insecure, you're going to prioritize buying groceries over spending $$ at the laundromat. The last time DH had jury duty, there was more than one person who broke down saying they had no idea how they would pay their bills that month if they got chosen and even missing one day of work was putting them in a bad place. :(

[Bluegoat]

I think I know what you mean.

 

A person who has limited clothing choices can still look appropriate.  A painter may have only stained work clothes, but they can be clean (stained does not = dirty, kwim?) and as neat as possible.  To me, they will look more appropriate than a person wearing designer jeans that were strategically pre-ripped at the factory.  

 

T-shirts probably means sloppy-looking t-shirts with or without slogans.  I would advise a man to wear any sort of collared shirt, but if a crew-neck t-shirt was all that was available, if it was clean, plain (meaning no slogans or screen-prints), and (if possible) tucked in, it would probably be fine.  I don't think a woman's fitted t-shirt (as a pp mentioned) would be considered the same way.

 

Seems like we've had these conversations before, maybe regarding wedding attire. I don't know, but I think that at one time in the US, people had a sense of what was appropriate to wear in certain circumstances.  I think at one time most people would know not to wear a t-shirt with pictures or slogans on it in a courthouse.   Maybe I'm just basing that on where I lived but it wouldn't have been in an upper-class neighborhood.  I think as we as a culture have become more casual  people are losing that sense. This is just my impression though. As an example, I know a lot of people who wear very casual clothing to church, but they know that "church attire" as a dress code means something different from the shorts and flip-flops they might wear on any Sunday.  But younger people will not know that, if no one is telling them. 

 

Yes, this is exactly what I mean.

 

It's funny, because it's never been the case that even those who were working class and labourers were expected to have the same kind of clothing fo work as people who were in white collar jobs, or professional positions.  A bricklayer was not expected to wear a tuxedo or probably even a suit to a wedding, and to a job interview that would not even be desirable.  But there was a sense of what you were shooting for at these various social levels - you. Including jury duty.  You looked like a bricklayer in his better clothes, scrubbed up.

 

I think there are a few things that have happened that have confused this.  One is that social mobility has made people miss that there are still really levels of dress and what is appropriate that are essentially class based.  Another is that the second half of the 20th century was really focused on breaking down some of these ideas that it considered restrictive - saying things like clothing doesn't matter.  But we only really half-believe that most of the time, so it doesn't really work.  The expectations aren't consistent, and often younger people haven't had much in the way of explicit teaching about what's appropriate.  Also, among the more well off, there has been a certain amount of bringing counter-cultural fashion into the consumer mainstream, so that you can actually buy ripped up jeans that cost $1000 dollars. 

 

I know my dh notices a lot of the co-op students don't know what is office appropriate.  His office is casual, a lot of the people are working with equipment or in a lab much of the time, plus there are many field workers who are outdoors or in the woods.  The co-op students don't always understand though the difference between at home casual and at work casual. Or with the young women, they are sometimes more dressy but wear clothes for going out dancing rather than for the office.

[marbel]

Even **clean** can be a burden for people. If you're food insecure, you're going to prioritize buying groceries over spending $$ at the laundromat. The last time DH had jury duty, there was more than one person who broke down saying they had no idea how they would pay their bills that month if they got chosen and even missing one day of work was putting them in a bad place. :(

 

I think that in those cases, people should be excused, even before they get there.  Every time I've been called for jury duty, the summons includes a method for asking to be excused.  I don't remember all of the reasons that would be considered legitimate.  "Missing a day's pay" should surely be one of them, though maybe it is not. 

 

I am sure this is not feasible but it seems that it would make sense for the courts to pay jurors the amount of $ they would lose by being there.  So if a person works at a job where they don't get paid for time away, and they make, say $64 a day, they would get paid that amount by the court.   Most of the times I was called, I was salaried and jury duty was an "excused absence" and thus didn't affect my pay; I'd have happily forgone the $6 or whatever it was.   

 

Of course such a system would have problems of its own; I'm not suggesting that it would be easy or necessarily even sensible to implement such a thing.  But its disheartening to think of a person not being able to buy food or clean their clothes because of jury duty. 

[Bluegoat]

Working is a legitimate excuse for missing jury duty.  For that matter, so is being an at-home carer.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think that in those cases, people should be excused, even before they get there.  Every time I've been called for jury duty, the summons includes a method for asking to be excused.  I don't remember all of the reasons that would be considered legitimate.  "Missing a day's pay" should surely be one of them, though maybe it is not. 

 

I am sure this is not feasible but it seems that it would make sense for the courts to pay jurors the amount of $ they would lose by being there.  So if a person works at a job where they don't get paid for time away, and they make, say $64 a day, they would get paid that amount by the court.   Most of the times I was called, I was salaried and jury duty was an "excused absence" and thus didn't affect my pay; I'd have happily forgone the $6 or whatever it was.   

 

Of course such a system would have problems of its own; I'm not suggesting that it would be easy or necessarily even sensible to implement such a thing.  But its disheartening to think of a person not being able to buy food or clean their clothes because of jury duty. 

 

Here there are no automatic excuses.  I have called them and gotten out of it though.  They don't have to let me out, but they have. 

[amyx4]

Working is a legitimate excuse for missing jury duty.  For that matter, so is being an at-home carer.

 

I served on a jury. One woman was an in-home daycare provider. She provided documentation. The judge didn't let her out. She served on that trial with me.

Edited June 21, 2017 by amyx4

[StephanieZ]

Jury duty. Ugh. I got out of it several times when I had nurslings and/or little ones at home FT with no available sitter . . . I haven't been called since my kids were old enough to leave alone . . . not looking forward to that particular civic duty. 

 

Like most dress codes, that one is arbitrary and ridiculous, IMHO. I'd likely wear whatever I had on hand that seemed reasonable. Since I have lots of clothes, I'd follow the guidelines (resentfully). If I didn't own clothes that fit the guidelines, I'd call the court and tell them so, and see if that got me out of duty. If that didn't work, I'd borrow something or wear the best I could come up with, resentfully. 

 

I resent plenty of my civic duties, like, say, taxes and DMV visits, etc. I super resent that my 18 yo son will have to register for the draft any day now when his notice arrives . . . I still do them, even when I resent them. Some of them I even totally agree with (most of them in fact), but that doesn't mean they don't get under my skin. Similarly, I'd resent, but comply with, the jury duty requirements. 

[Bluegoat]

I served on a jury. One woman was an in-home daycare provider. She provided documentation. The judge didn't let her out. She served on that trial with me.

 

I am sure that nothing is universal on earth.  And judges have some discretion.  However, work and childcare are generally seen as legitimate excuses if it would create hardship.

[StephanieZ]

Working is a legitimate excuse for missing jury duty.  For that matter, so is being an at-home carer.

 

This entirely depends on the court. Many will NOT excuse people for work, unless their work or business will be at grave risk/damage due to their absence.

 

My dh is a solo-practice vet (well, we have a 1/4 time associate, too, but that's just one day a week) supporting 12 employees . . .  If he misses work, work stops (unless we can find a relief vet to cover for $500+/day). He *has* been able to get out of jury duty repeatedly over the years, so far, in two different jurisdictions due to the "extreme hardship" his service would cause his business, but I know of other owner-vets who could not get out of service in other jurisdictions, and based on our research at the times he was called, we didn't take it for granted that he'd be excused. It was actually pretty worrisome if he hadn't been excused, as a lengthy service could be catastrophic to us.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Thankfully they let me off for not having child care.  Pretty difficult to get childcare last minute during weekdays. 

 

Last time I got called for grand jury duty.  They postponed me until my younger kid is 16.  That'll work.  ; )

 

 

[StephanieZ]

Slightly OT, is our business unusual in that we guarantee full pay for up to some length of jury duty? I think we have it capped at 4-6 weeks or somewhere in there, but we would pay a full day/week's pay for employees who are called to jury duty. I don't know if that is particularly rare, but I know I got the idea from some standard employee manual when I was writing ours a dozen years ago . . . 

 

So, anyway, if you *are* called and are employed, be sure to check with your employer about jury duty pay. You might be surprised. Our employee manual is 100+ pages long, and I doubt many of our staffers remember much of it (even though they are paid to sit in the staff room and read it on their first day of employment, lol). 

[Bluegoat]

Just to remind people, the context here is someone that has to choose between clean laundry and food.  Missing work is going to be pretty serious.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Slightly OT, is our business unusual in that we guarantee full pay for up to some length of jury duty? I think we have it capped at 4-6 weeks or somewhere in there, but we would pay a full day/week's pay for employees who are called to jury duty. I don't know if that is particularly rare, but I know I got the idea from some standard employee manual when I was writing ours a dozen years ago . . . 

 

So, anyway, if you *are* called and are employed, be sure to check with your employer about jury duty pay. You might be surprised. Our employee manual is 100+ pages long, and I doubt many of our staffers remember much of it (even though they are paid to sit in the staff room and read it on their first day of employment, lol). 

 

Here I think businesses are required to do this in many circumstances. 

 

Might be a state by state regulation or something.

[luuknam]

I am sure this is not feasible but it seems that it would make sense for the courts to pay jurors the amount of $ they would lose by being there.  So if a person works at a job where they don't get paid for time away, and they make, say $64 a day, they would get paid that amount by the court.   Most of the times I was called, I was salaried and jury duty was an "excused absence" and thus didn't affect my pay; I'd have happily forgone the $6 or whatever it was.   

 

 

Um, no. If someone is unemployed but looking for work (going to interviews, etc), they would get $0. If they're making minimum wage, they would get a very small amount, whereas if someone is a doctor they'd get a ton? I don't think that's right, especially since the doctor is a lot more likely to be able to do without that day's pay, even if he's running his own business and not salaried. 

 

I'd say jury duty should pay something like 2x minimum wage, and have that amount be adjusted automatically every time minimum wage is changed. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Just to remind people, the context here is someone that has to choose between clean laundry and food.  Missing work is going to be pretty serious.

 

Yes this would be a cruel thing to do to someone.  I'm angry at the thought they do this anywhere.

[luuknam]

BTW, I do think hardship exemptions should exist, for special cases and all that. I just think that the amount someone mentioned upthread ($40/day) is way too low, and probably hasn't been adjusted in forever. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think they should have professional juries.  So many people complain about the current process.  It's a hardship probably for most people.  If I didn't have childcare issues, heck I'd be all over doing it because they pay $40 a day and that's a lot more than I'm making now.  And I probably would find it somewhat interesting.  But if I was worried about the money, I'd be upset.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by SparklyUnicorn

[Bootsie]

I am sure that nothing is universal on earth.  And judges have some discretion.  However, work and childcare are generally seen as legitimate excuses if it would create hardship.

These are not excuses in the county which I live.  Employers cannot fire you for serving jury duty.  The employer does not have to pay you for the missed days of work.  Being self-employed does not excuse one from jury duty.    

 

The county recently changed the age of a child who would be left unattended to 12 from 5 years old.  But there are caveats--if you work at all, even for one hour a month at home, the exemption that you have a young child no longer applies. 

[luuknam]

I think they should have professional juries.  So many people complain about the current process.  It's a hardship probably for most people.  If I didn't have childcare issues, heck I'd be all over doing it because they pay $40 a day and that's a lot more than I'm making now.  And I probably would find it somewhat interesting.  But if I was worried about the money, I'd be upset.

 

 

Aside from the financial hardship issue, depending on the case/crime, it's also some serious emotional labor. For example some gruesome murder case where it's not clear-cut whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That kind of stress should be worth more than $40/day. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Aside from the financial hardship issue, depending on the case/crime, it's also some serious emotional labor. For example some gruesome murder case where it's not clear-cut whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That kind of stress should be worth more than $40/day. 

 

Yeah I don't think I'd do well with something like that.  For one thing I cry easily. 

[Bluegoat]

These are not excuses in the county which I live.  Employers cannot fire you for serving jury duty.  The employer does not have to pay you for the missed days of work.  Being self-employed does not excuse one from jury duty.    

 

The county recently changed the age of a child who would be left unattended to 12 from 5 years old.  But there are caveats--if you work at all, even for one hour a month at home, the exemption that you have a young child no longer applies. 

 

They would insist on someone attending even if he was going to be unable to pay for basic necessities?

[Bootsie]

I was surprised at what some people did choose to wear to jury duty (such as the FBI shirt).  It was even worse because we were lining up outside the courtroom in which an ongoing child sexual assault case was to be heard.  I guess this might be information that the prosecuting attorney wanted to know when choosing jurors to strike.  I did begin to wonder if some people intentionally wore items and dressed in a way to make the attorney think that they do not take the job seriously so that they are eliminated.

 

(In case you are wondering if the FBI guy got on the jury, after standing in the hallway for 1 hour and 45 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the afternoon, the 65 people on our panel were dismissed so that there could be some pre-trial hearings.)         

[Bootsie]

They would insist on someone attending even if he was going to be unable to pay for basic necessities?

They say that they will.  How often it comes down to this, I do not know.  They tell stories of how they go to people's homes and arrest them for not reporting to jury duty.  Economic consequences are not an exemption in my county.  People who are in that situation are told to discuss that with the judge in the actual courtroom that they are in and that judge can factor that in however he/she chooses.  If I had been in that situation, I would have had to report by 8:00am in the morning but as of 2:00 in the afternoon still had not entered the courtroom where that would have been a possibility,     

[Laura Corin]

Working is a legitimate excuse for missing jury duty. For that matter, so is being an at-home carer.

Work doesn't get you off duty in Scotland, unless you can prove exceptional hardship to the business. The employer must give leave and the court compensates for some earnings lost.

 

https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/taking-time-off-work

[Seasider]

When I think of shorter length business attire (like what the attorneys and professionals should wear), I have no problem with capris for women as part of a professional ensemble with the rest of the outfit coordinating, especially footwear. I mean, remember the lawyer in the first Jurassic Park movie? Bermuda shorts, baby!

 

So I can't imagine why Capri pants would be banned, unless people aren't thinking of "pants" being defined in a way similar to "slacks" - trousers that are well tailored but not made of stretchy, conforming material. When I'm in the clothing department, I see all kinds of things marketed as "capris," from business casual pants to stretchy and tight leggings and exercise wear. Perhaps that's the point this dress code is trying to make.

 

Though deep down I think if someone is by law entitled to "a jury of their peers," why do we have a dress code for the jury? (Yeah, yeah, I can see all kinds of problems with that, it just struck me as funny. Maybe prospective jurors should have to change into some kind of uniform when they enter the courthouse... ok yeah now I'm just being completely silly.)

 

Anyway, I can perhaps understand the spirit of the request, but as often happens, the outworking of it is more complicated than anticipated.

 

(Edited a bit because old eyes plus autocorrect is a mess.)

Edited June 21, 2017 by Seasider

[Bluegoat]

A uniform for jurors doesn't sound that odd to me.  I think it could work.  I kind of wish that lawyers here still wore wigs, myself. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

capris = pants that actually fit me

 

:laugh:

[Reefgazer]

Not here it's not; you're obligated to attend and your employer is obligated to hold your job for you.

Working is a legitimate excuse for missing jury duty. For that matter, so is being an at-home carer.

[Bluegoat]

Not here it's not; you're obligated to attend and your employer is obligated to hold your job for you.

 

And there isn't any pay for jurors?

[Bluegoat]

I just find it pretty hard to believe that among the exemption for things like health, not being able to pay for food wouldn't make the grade.

[Pawz4me]

And there isn't any pay for jurors?

 

The pay here for jury duty --

 

$12 for the first day

$20/day for days two through five

$40/day as of the sixth day and thereafter

[Bluegoat]

Well, I may be way out, but I feel like if someone is so hard up they can't afford to wash their clothes, chances are they are in a minimum wage type of situation.  15 a day is pretty crappy, but not nothing.

 

And yes, I know there may be some exceptions.  No guideline fits every possible or potential situation, which is why there is room for individual discretion.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I'm kind of saddened to read everybody's jury call proceedings. In my county here in MN, they tell you you're being called for selection for two weeks. Every day during that two weeks the potential juror calls a hotline to find out if s/he is needed for the next day. S/he can still work and earn an income or fulfill obligations. They just simply call in every morning.

 

My mom just did this.

 

She called one morning and discovered she was needed the next day. Each daily pool consisted of 40 potential jurors. They show up and go through selection at the courthouse. If they are not selected, they are released from the obligation.

 

All this fosters a willingness to help the jury process; there really is no burden on one's time or income unless one is called in.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm kind of saddened to read everybody's jury call proceedings. In my county here in MN, they tell you you're being called for selection for two weeks. Every day during that two weeks the potential juror calls a hotline to find out if s/he is needed for the next day. S/he can still work and earn an income or fulfill obligations. They just simply call in every morning.

 

My mom just did this.

 

She called one morning and discovered she was needed the next day. Each daily pool consisted of 40 potential jurors. They show up and go through selection at the courthouse. If they are not selected, they are released from the obligation.

 

All this fosters a willingness to help the jury process; there really is no burden on one's time or income unless one is called in.

 

This sounds potentially stressful as hell though.  What if you need to arrange for child care?  You won't know until the day before?  Who has on demand child care? 

[Kassia]

Aside from the financial hardship issue, depending on the case/crime, it's also some serious emotional labor. For example some gruesome murder case where it's not clear-cut whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That kind of stress should be worth more than $40/day. 

 

Something similar happened to me when I was on grand jury.  We had to listen to a case involving child porn.  It was horrifying and it still upsets me to this day - almost five years later.  I wish I had never heard the things I heard in that room.  

 

Thankfully they let me off for not having child care.  Pretty difficult to get childcare last minute during weekdays. 

 

Last time I got called for grand jury duty.  They postponed me until my younger kid is 16.  That'll work.  ; )

 

I have been called at least three times and could not get off for childcare issues.  They told me to make arrangements.  The only time I was excused was when I was eight months pregnant.  

[Guest]

A uniform for jurors doesn't sound that odd to me.  I think it could work.  I kind of wish that lawyers here still wore wigs, myself. 

 

Yeah- give them robes or something! Then the dress codes wouldn't matter!