Stay-at-home moms are needed to serve on juries

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