Having worked on an ambulance as a paramedic where I was exposed to a lot of people, I would say that assuming the possibility that these people are capable of being responsible and adhering to a summons would be the unscientific and ideologically driven stance.

You forget that you mostly deal with "normal" people. People with jobs, or friends, hobbies, etc. There is however, a surprisingly large class of people that aren't even remotely capable of the fairly rudimentary skill-set required to do something like: read a summons, understand that it says they have to go to court on a certain date, decide that they should in fact go, schedule that date and reserve the time to go, wake up on time, remember to go, find reliable transportation to get to court, find the court, figure out how to get into the building and through security, and figure out where to go once in the court building. Failing at any one of the steps in that chain means failing to appear. It may be hard to believe, but in my experience, there are actually a LOT of people for whom this sequence would be a pretty big stretch. Guess which segment of society makes up a disproportionate number of police encounters which will ultimately lead to a court summons?

My implication was actually not to make assumptions, one way or another. But I do take your point. I tend, as a matter of principle, to try to assume the highest capability of others unless proven wrong.

Here's an even stickier question for you, now that we've wandered off the path. How do you feel about these people (I'll call them a basket of incapables) voting?

>Here's an even stickier question for you, now that we've wandered off the path. How do you feel about these people (I'll call them a basket of incapables) voting?

This is a good question , though not one which is too interesting. I think it's largely hypothetical since I believe voter turnout amongst the group I was speaking about would be abysmal. Nevertheless, I think I can answer definitively: I actually like the non-mandatory system America has, but I don't like the artificial impediments to voting that we've been seeing lately and for most of our history. So, in general, I would oppose almost any form of disenfranchisement, but I also don't really feel like someone that doesn't otherwise care enough to vote really needs to vote, or that they even should. ...and I'd oppose any form of mandatory voting like some nations have tried.

Interestingly, for much of my youth, I did not vote. Primarily, this was because I felt inadequately informed on the respective issues to be qualified to vote on them. I also felt like my opinion was too easily swayed and misled by information that wasn't in fact substantive at the end of the day.

I now vote, but I only fill out my ballot for issues which I feel I am informed enough to vote on. This means I usually only vote on 40-50% of the items on the ballot.

It doesn't assume it's always impossible. If you think the problem with the current summons/warrant/arrest system is "unscientific", then I invite you to consider what kinds of effects mandatory court appearance between 9 am and 5 pm have on low-income defendants.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in the United States that prohibits employers from firing workers who have to appear in court. But I totally understand why "respecting the legitimacy of the courts," while nice in principle, doesn't match in comparison to putting food on the table.