| Stay-at-home moms
are needed to serve on juries
Just a thought related to John Munford’s
nice story on the stay-at-home mom, Barbara Anderson, whose letter helped
change jury duty exemption laws.
Mrs. Anderson ended up serving her duty, the story told, but afterward
wrote to the judge telling of the hardships on her family resulting from
her being at court for six days with the two children in care elsewhere.
The law was changed to exempt stay-at-home caregivers of children 4 and
younger from duty. “Let’s hear it for family values,” said
Mrs. Anderson.
I just wondered, did anyone else out there but me have the thought that
exempting stay-at-home moms and dads may not help family values?
From my experience, many of these citizens for whom it would be a hardship
to serve on jury duty are exactly the type of jurors we need in the courts
to represent family values. I think it would be a shame to eliminate these
involved, informed, concerned people from the closed-door life-or-death
discussions that go on in the jury room. (Concerned parent and now Citizen
newspaper columnist Amy Riley’s name comes to mind as that type of
person.)
I served on two juries in one month (one case lasted a week during ice-
and snowstorms) within six months of registering to vote when I moved
to Norfolk, Va., several years ago, and it was one of the most enriching,,
eye-opening experiences of my life. I felt I had a viewpoint and certain
values to add to the discussions that many of my fellow jurors did not,
and the same is true for each and every one of us
.
It is well worth the hardship to take part in our duty to keep the legal
system operating the way it was intended. (Besides, as a stay-at-home
mom, if you ever had to appear before a jury, wouldn’t you hope to
have at least a couple of your “peers” on that jury, helping
make those key decisions?)
Savannah Rogers
Peachtree City
Back
to Opinion Home Page |
Back
to the top of the page
|
