Opinion split on whether lying to get out of jury duty is a crime

April 13, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A recent informal public opinion survey found that respondents were closely split on whether lying to get out of jury duty is grounds for arrest.

SodaHead.com – an opinion-based online community – polled its users to see if they thought lying to get out of jury duty should be punishable by arrest. Of those responding, 55 percent believe it should be considered a crime; 45 percent don’t think it’s “a big deal.”

Whether or not you think it is a crime could depend on your age. Nearly three-fourths of those over the age of 65 think it’s a crime. Only 54 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds think it should be a crime.

The poll results aren’t in-depth, but they do provide an interesting snapshot of what people think about jury duty. It’s definitely something that a lot of people dread. Just last week, I had a friend who lives in California ask on Facebook what he should say to get out of jury duty.

Must be a California thing, because of the states highlighted by SodaHead.com, California residents were more likely to say that lying to get out of jury duty shouldn’t be a crime. The four other states mentioned – New York, Nevada, Texas and Florida – all had higher response rates indicating those residents think it should be a crime.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT