An Argument for Civic Duty as a Protection of All Other Rights

By Philip Glickstein

Introduction

In the structure of democratic governance, few responsibilities are as crucial as the civic duty to serve on a jury. Unlike many rights, jury duty is an obligation that directly compels and upholds the integrity of justice and the social contract. Civic duties are not optional—they are fundamental to the preservation of individual liberties, the functioning of the State, and the maintenance of the societal framework within which rights are exercised and protected.

Let us explore the distinction between rights and duties, the philosophical underpinnings of this difference, and why service on a jury is essential to the preservation of a society governed by laws. This exploration will then bring us to an analysis of Florida Statute §768.21(8) and how its exclusionary provisions undermine citizens’ ability to perform this crucial civic role.

Rights vs. Duties: A Necessary Distinction

A right is a legal or moral entitlement to act (or refrain from acting) in a certain way, giving the individual discretion in its exercise. For example, you possess the right to vote, but there is no obligation to cast a ballot. While a core tenet of liberty, this discretion does not apply to duties.

Conversely, a duty is a responsibility imposed by law or moral principle that compels action. Fulfilling a duty is not optional. It is a requirement essential for maintaining the integrity of a democratic society. Among the most important civic duties are jury service, the payment of taxes, and military service. These are not mere suggestions but mandates that sustain the legal and societal order, and your active participation is crucial.

The Civic Duty of Jury Service

Jury duty is one of the clearest examples of civic duty. Unlike voting, jury service does not come with the option of refrainment. Citizens must serve when called upon unless they qualify for specific exemptions. This is because the jury system is not just a part, but the cornerstone of participatory democracy. It ensures that justice is administered by the people, for the people. Without the active involvement of jurors, the legal system would lose its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Philosophical Perspectives: Liberty, Duty, and Mutual Obligations

Classical liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson recognized that while protecting individual rights is paramount, a functioning society must balance liberty and duty. Immanuel Kant emphasized that duty arises from universal moral principles and is essential to ethical life. Kant’s philosophy underlines the civic cycle: a society that protects your rights requires your completion of the duty to preserve its existence.  Similarly, John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle asserts that individuals may exercise their liberty freely, provided they do not harm others. Jury duty fits within this framework:  if one refuses to serve on a jury, one undermines the justice system, which proceeds to societal harm.  Thus, while liberty grants the individual the opportunity to choose, society operates under a social contract, and duty compels action in the form of civic obligations such as jury duty, taxes, etc.   

As expressed by Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes, these are necessary to ensure that society functions to protect the rights enjoyed by the citizenry.   For example, freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial are preserved through active participation in civic duties. If citizens fail to meet their obligations, the balance of the social contract is disrupted, threatening the structure that safeguards individual liberties.  By serving on a jury, individuals uphold the right to a fair trial and contribute to the evolution of societal norms.  By rendering verdicts, juries check the power of the State and ensure that laws are applied fairly. Through this participation, citizens shape the legal landscape, defining what constitutes reasonable care, acceptable behavior, and fair compensation in criminal and civil cases alike. Excluding jurors from this process weakens the ability of citizens to influence societal standards and protect their rights.

Application to Florida Statute §768.21(8)

Issue:

Florida Statute §768.21(8) bars the recovery of noneconomic damages (such as mental pain, suffering, or loss of companionship) for a specific class of citizens in medical negligence cases. This exclusionary provision effectively denies these individuals access to legal representation because attorneys will not take these cases contingently with no potential recovery of damages. The statute effectively closes the courtroom door to a subset of citizens and denies them the opportunity to bring their cases before a jury.

Impact:

Aside from the impact felt by the bereaved because their voices have been silenced, this statute also affects the entire community by depriving jurors of the opportunity to adjudicate these cases which are restricted by Subsection 8. When juries are barred from hearing cases involving noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, they are denied the opportunity to participate in shaping societal norms related to medical negligence. Juries are more than arbiters of individual disputes; they are essential to the collective moral judgment of the community. By systematically excluding certain cases from being heard by a jury, FS §768.21(8) undermines the jury system, weakening the social contract.  The exclusionary provision in FS §768.21(8) significantly denies citizens their duty to serve as jurors, and they are effectively deprived of their civic responsibility to contribute to the evolution of legal standards and societal values, particularly in areas as critical as medical negligence.

Conclusion: The Erosion of the Social Contract

Florida Statute §768.21(8) undermines the very system that protects individual liberties by denying citizens the opportunity to participate in the justice system. This exclusion not only harms those directly affected by medical negligence but also erodes the community's collective ability to protect broader societal rights through the jury system.

In a society where jury participation is denied, the social contract falters, weakening the relationship between the individual and the State. Civic duties like jury service are essential to preserving the structure of democracy. If the jury system is compromised by a short-sighted act of the legislature, then the protection of all other rights is imperiled. This statute must be reconsidered to restore the full function of the jury system and ensure that Florida’s citizens can fulfill their civic duty to protect the rights of all.