Last week I responded to our county seat for a jury duty summons. I didn’t really try to get out of it, though I didn’t want to be there.

As part of my personal process, I let all the people I work with know that I’d be out for at least one day, maybe more if I was selected.

The process had both improved and worsened since the last time I did this, maybe twelve years ago? In that earlier encounter, very limited information was conveyed. It was, have a seat. Wait. Then an announcement that the civil trial we’d been called in for had been settled. Thank you for coming you are now free and clear from being called for three years. Goodbye.

This time, upon arrival, we presented our summons and ID and were told to have a seat along with eighty or ninety of our fellow citizens. So far, the same as twelve years ago.

I was then told there was no coffee available, that was the worse. Apparently they like grumpy jurrors.

What was different this time, they had two judges speak to us. The first judge walked in and explained the process at around 9:30 a.m. He explained how the judge in the case were are assigned to would ask us questions and that we were to answer them by holding up a paddle indicating the affirmative. Some questions were mundane, like do you have any medical issues that would prevent you from serving? After a few questions asked and answered, and he left. Now, I had an expectation of what was to come.

Just before noon, the second judge came down and spoke to. The judge explained that there had been five cases scheduled for that day. The judge further explained that four defendants had accepted plea agreements and one was a no-show, so no trials today. Then he dismissed us. I was home by noon. Again, I’m not supposed to serve for another three years. A mundane outcome.

Later, I double checked, I had voted to retain that second judge earlier in the month; in Pennsylvania we vote for judges. The vote is semantically rigged, but we do have the ability to rid ourselves of a notoriously bad judge.

I work with people who are literally scattered all over the planet. One project manager I deal with several times a week, is an ethnic Russian who was born, raised and resides in Kazakstan. I like talking to him. He is personable and I get small insights his life. That interests me.

My next meeting was with him was the day after my jury duty had been completed.

He was gobsmacked at the idea of a jury. There is no equivalent idea in Kazakstan. There if you want to stay out of jail, you bribe the judge. But you should only get that far if you failed to copiously bribe the police adequately before hand.

Which sent me into compare and contrast mode. While we have crooked cops, particularly in our urban centers, where there are concentrations of people want illegal goods and services. We can discuss the effects of prohibition another time.

In my world I’ve observed two kinds of police officers. About 70% are what I’d classify as being “Peace Officers”, honest people doing a difficult job. The other 30% are bullies in a uniform. It wouldn’t occur to me to attempt a bribe, especially over a traffic ticket. If you live in an urban county, your results may vary.

The right to a jury trial is enshrined in the constitution. It’s one of the few areas of the constitution not under assault.

The jury system is descend from English common law and it is enshrined on our constitution. , It is brilliant in its simplicity and anti-corruption features. How is an ordinary criminal supposed to bribe twelve people? The jury decides guilt or innocence. I believe in some jurisdictions juries can make sentencing recommendations. The judge explains the law to the jury. The other role a judge has is to set the sentence.

A quick Internet search finds that juror intimidation is rare. It happens, but the number of cases seems exceedingly small. Also, even a criminal of modest intelligence might understand that jury intimidation is only likely to get them a longer sentence. Time is another factor. The first judge that spoke to us said most trials only last two to five days. Getting things organized to bribe or intimidate a juror takes time.

The important point that juries provide an immunity against bribery and less profitable for ordinary and even extraordinary criminal cases. The only time juries seem to become a mixed bag when it comes to celebrity or with political cases.

In the US, bribing a judge only get’s you a reduced sentence. The job of the judge is actually a bit like that of that of a project manager, in the American system, keep the process moving within the bounds of the law.

Corruption in the American system does exist. Prosecutorial discretion and the metrics that drive elections. A good prosecutor will release obviously innocent people or notoriously bad cases. The main issue is prosecutorial over-charging. The prosecutor will engage in negotiations with the lawyer of the person being prosecuted. To gain an upper hand, prosecutors over-charge suspects and the offer a bargain of “pleading” down to what they should have been charged with in the first place. Prosecutors who get to stack up their conviction metrics and run on that feature, in convenient years.

I find it ironic that this one little corner of America, basically untouched by the “living constitution” continues to work as well as it ever did, not perfectly, but well enough.