XPost: can.internet.highspeed, ont.general   
   From: DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net   
      
   In message  Doug Mitton   
    was claimed to have wrote:   
      
   >Some Guy  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Doug Mitton wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> I went through this about a year ago.  I had several reservations   
   >>> about the whole thing:   
   >>   
   >>Do you know from which list you were selected?  Was it the municipal   
   >>property tax roles, or was it a federal election list?  Do you know   
   >>which court system you were dealing with?  Was it provincial or federal?   
   >   
   >I don't know which list BUT it was for provincial.   
      
   Alberta courts use the motor vehicle registration as one source, I don't   
   know about other sources.   
      
   >>> - There is a threat implied in the notification, and we are   
   >>>   supposed to be the innocent ones.   
   >>   
   >>The threat is that you will be penalized if you don't fill out the form   
   >>truthfully and send it back.  If you want to have a jury that is   
   >>unbiased (from a selection point of view) you can't have it composed of   
   >>only people that have self-selected themselves because they want to be   
   >>on a jury.  Remember, at some point *you* might find have to defend   
   >>yourself in court, and you will want an unbiased jury.   
   >   
   >Still unfair in my opinion.   
   >I don't have ideas on how to make it better but financial hardship   
   >should definetly be one, or at least pay the (missed) salary of the   
   >person.  I know for a fact none of the court officers work for free,   
   >why should the jury.   
      
   I have a couple objections to the whole process, but financial hardship   
   is my biggest complaint.   
      
   While the court system is already expensive enough to operate, I'd   
   rather not have jurors spending their time thinking about how they won't   
   be able to afford that vacation they're planning because I didn't have   
   an alibi.  They're already biased against me because I'm suspicious   
   enough to have made it to a trial, that's good enough for me.   
      
   I think I'd rather make employers pay salary and issue tax credits, I'd   
   expect less fraud this way (and hopefully less overhead, although that   
   could go either way), with some upper caps in compensation, something in   
   the range of limiting compensation to the equivalent of $75K/year based   
   on the hourly/daily rate.  Reasonable transportation costs not exceeding   
   actual transportation costs should get factored in, if you live   
   somewhere without public transit access you shouldn't be stuck paying   
   for cab fares.   
      
   As a tax payer, I'm willing to absorb my share of these costs equally   
   rather then only targeting those who couldn't come up with a reason to   
   be excused.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)