I'm always a little disappointed at the people who try so hard to get out of jury duty. In the federal system, the case agent (me) sits with the federal prosecutors (Assistant United States Attorneys - AUSAs in the vernacular) for the whole trial, including the jury selection process.
A lot goes into it - the AUSAs pour over the jury questionairres and make their picks. They have a limited number of strikes and they try to use them wisely.
In my experience, just being in law enforcement or related to someone in law enforcement isn't enough to get an automatic strike. There is a follow up question - can you be fair and impartial despite your connection to law enforcement? The same thing for being a victim. If you can honestly answer yes, then you can get on a jury. I did.
I think most folks just recognize the question as an easy out and take it, which is understandable in a way but frustrating for the other players.
I worked Indian Country cases so by the time we picked a jury our victim (probably of child sex abuse or rape or a violent assault) had been through the initial trauma, the scab-picking of the investigation, and - once a trial loomed - several sessions of trial prep. While they are sitting in a witness room waiting to tell a jury of complete (and usually white) strangers about the worst thing that ever happened to them, those same folks are trying like hell to get out of hearing it.
On the bright side, somehow the system gets it right most of the time. Not always by a long shot, but usually.