Yeah, pretty much. Under US law everyone is entitled to trail by a "jury of their peers", which means a group selected from the general populace (people can opt to be tried solely by a judge, a "bench trial" instead, but that's less common). A fair number of other countries also employ similar systems. Jury summons are sent out to people in a given area as needed (lists of eligible jurors are compiled from DMV and voter registration records). Once people report in for jury duty they're sent in groups to cases waiting to be heard, where the judge presiding over the case and the attorneys representing the parties are allowed to question the potential jurors and reject any they find unsuitable until a jury of 12 (plus a few backups) is assigned, then the trial can proceed. Eligible jurors can be called up to once a year to serve on a jury, and it can be as quick as just calling in and finding out you're not needed, or can take up to a couple of weeks if selected to actually serve on a jury.

So can you reject it?

When I saw the John Cusack movie, I thought he was ordered to it and couldn't escape the duty (even though in reality he wanted to participate to the jury as he had his own hidden agenda in the case).

Typically, if you tell them you're related to police (I am) and/or don't believe in judging other people in that sense, they will dismiss you because you'd be considered biased. That's what I've heard from family that have done it, at least.

Oh yes I agree with that, thought you mean even judges shouldn't pass judgement.

Oh no, I definitely think judges should because they've been specifically trained to do so whereas the average person is not and in the US, they don't get to choose whether they do or not which is wrong.

Are there reasons for being excused? For instance if you served on a jury during the past 12 months, financial hardships, no caregiver for your children, health issues? Since you already served as juror you can't claim that you can't serve for religious reasons if that's accepted as reason.

-

In this country lay judges are randomly selected assisting a judge or judges in a trial. After closing arguments they withdraw and deliberate with a judge to come to a verdict. So this isn't like jury duty where they are amongst themselves for deliberations with a selected foreperson where they may ask a deputy to forward questions to a judge or ask for items presented during trial to be shown them. As opposed to jury of 6/12 they can't be hung and mistrial declared with lay judges. They are usually seated next to a judge or judges during trial, they are allowed to directly question a defendant and they can also decide on the sentence when a verdict has been reached.

Personally I have never sat in as lay judge and don't expect to. They exclude you when you suffer from poor health or are impaired to a certain degree. I participated as plaintiff and witness from the stand as well as in the audience. The JoWood case for instance where I was present as the court this case was tried was close to where I live. Interesting experience and the only way to be present in person because no TV coverage is allowed. I wish it would as it would grant access to people not able to for whatever reason.

Whatever I personally think about U.S. court and how they work what I like is TV/Internet access, live streams from courts. I find this as important to be able to see how law works and is applied as it is to know one's own rights and duties according to the law.

There are benefits and downsides to each approach. While I see your point, after having lived under a judicial system where the judge also serves as a jury... let's just say it opens up a different can of worms regarding corruption and political influence.

I don't think that's changed much, now that War 2.0 is basically a game of Remote Drone Pilot 3000.

I definitely believe there should be a jury but I feel like it is 100% wrong to legally force a person to serve on one.

Isn't it always, They are both bogan (Redneck for US viewers) trash!

During the jury selection one of the key questions the judge asks everyone is if they believe they can act as an impartial jurist and apply the law to their decision as instructed. If an individual has issues with the law applicable to the case at hand, or the legal system in general they can speak up at this point and will almost always be dismissed. The main thing is that this needs to be an honest objection that you actually hold, not just bullshit for the sake of getting out of jury duty. If a judge feels you're being dishonest in your answers they have the power to hold you in contempt, which can result in a fine.

In the jury I served on, when asked this question one of the potential jurists said she didn't think she could be a good jurist because she "wasn't really a rational person". She was dismissed quickly.