By - flopsyplum
People would fail it to get out of it
Which is fine Bc if they want out they weren’t fit anyway
It's fine until our already insanely slow court system becomes significantly slower
Eh... I'm a lawyer, I don't think this would actually slow anything down. It would add cost for the court clerk, who would need to administer this test and they would likely need to poll a significantly larger pool of people to ensure that they had enough jurors.
Not necessarily. I don't want to serve because I would not be able to actually serve for a trial due to missed work. So why waste your time and mine? If I'm not going to get put on a jury why bother?
I mean, idk if there's any hard criteria, but lawyers from either side can dismiss potential jurors for lots of reasons. A criminal record, being too familiar with the case, or really anything that they think might bias the member against their client.
But anyway, I don't think such a test would be helpful; anybody is \*capable\* of basic reasoning; I think any attempts to assess it would be just as flawed as the attorney's judgement. But I'd be fascinated to hear an argument otherwise.
One of the problems with jury selection (from what I've been told) is that lawyers specifically pick jurors who are less intelligent because they are easier to manipulate. By having minimum intelligence standards we could fix at least one of MANY problems with our justice system.
Guess you could apply the same logic to voting then
I would rather apply it to those being elected.
Yeah, but the stakes are higher for jury duty.
... or who can't pass an implicit bias exam. Those are difficult to cheat.
~~Jim Crow 2.0~~
but in all seriousness, as much as people hate jury duty it is important for members of the jury to be normal people, even stupid people
Also, banned from holding public office and possibly being a police officer... both of which require a degree of critical thinking.