TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jury Duty

Jury Duty

Just thought I'd open up a new topic for discussion.

What are your thoughts about the current system of jury duty in the United States or wherever you live (if any)?

Do you believe the system is effective? Adequate?

Could it be improved in any way?

What are your thoughts about jury nullification?

I'll post my ideas later when I'm less tired and less busy.

"The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all racists..."

Seriously though, I think the system is pretty good here. I think it's not as good in the USA where there can be so much media hype and jurors getting exposed to it before they sit trial, here in Canada it's a little more closed off and that's a good thing.

But it's not something I have thought about extensively, so I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, problems people feel there are with it.

Re: Jury Duty

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Just thought I'd open up a new topic for discussion. What are your thoughts about the current system of jury duty in the United States or wherever you live (if any)? Do you believe the system is effective? Adequate? Could it be improved in any way? What are your thoughts about jury nullification? I'll post my ideas later when I'm less tired and less busy.

You know I was just thinking about this the other day. Both my wife and I had been called for jury duty in the past, and if we would have gone and possibly been selected, it would have seriously done some damage to our financial situation, esp. if the case extended out further than a week or so. So our response on the card we had in the mail was,"We're sorry, but we simply do not trust our local police force, given their current record of corruption." Instant disqualification.

The truth was we weren't lying - there has been reported corruption with our local police, but the real culprit for our contempt was missing work and having to give up possible paytime, which for us in our current situation at that time was simply unacceptable. I suppose if the local or federal government was willing to give us more than like $15/day for serving jury duty, we might have considered it. I personally find such a low pay a real travesty, esp. when there are those that rely on commission or say tips (if you're a server, for example). I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference in daily pay, but they have to give more than a mere $15/day. If our situation was different financially, I think we might have considered otherwise. Today, for example, I might be able to consider it - given the fact that I have plenty of sick/personal days and vacation days for this year for a paid leave.

I dunno. Do most jobs have to give you a paid leave for jury duty, because ours simply do not?

Well, I've never been called for jury duty, but if called, would proudly defend our capital punishment laws and would probably be promptly dismissed!

HAAHAHHA!
[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut "The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all racists..." Seriously though, I think the system is pretty good here. I think it's not as good in the USA where there can be so much media hype and jurors getting exposed to it before they sit trial, here in Canada it's a little more closed off and that's a good thing. But it's not something I have thought about extensively, so I'd be interested in hearing what, if any, problems people feel there are with it.

You pretty much summed it up right there.

it would be nice if we had some law grads in here.

misteropus hit the nail on the head. It totally sucks to be a juror.

1. The pay is a joke. That's why most people try to get out of it.

2. Protection is joke. After the trial you're cut loose to fend for yourself. A relative of mine had to do jury duty on mob related political corruption trial. Let me tell you, there is no real protection from someone wanting to intimidate you or your family.

Yeopus, my job does not give me jury duty leave. If I accepted the jury duty invitation, I would surely lose my job. In all honesty, I think going to jury duty is a joke, but that's just mho... considering most individuals on the jury do not understand the law system nor how a trial works, nor the rights of the criminal, nor do they fathom how things are twisted around.

To whomever asked : My brother and his fiance are lawyers. If we need a definite answer to some legitimate question, I can ask.

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade Yeopus, my job does not give me jury duty leave.

What? What?? I didn't say nothing

I've been called for jury duty.

But I had very good reasons for not attending: 1) I was in college at the time and hence expemt 2) I am not a US citizen and hence can't 'judge' my superiors.

Plus aside from that fact, no decent lawyer would ever pick a college educated man over a simpleton for jury duty over here

I'm so happy to be a non-US citizen. I get all the benifits of American society without any of the moral guilt or responsibility!

Second class citizens rule!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]"The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all racists..."

Ahahaha.

My dad says the trick is to say you're a member of both the ACLU and NRA.

(He's a law grad, so I'd trust him on that one).

shrug easiest 20$ I ever made was sitting on a comfy chair for a couple hours reading a book... course getting selected at a ghetto part of town would be not to much fun I'd imagine. Anuneventrade aren't there laws against that?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What? What?? I didn't say nothing

Wow, I've just realized that Yoepus sounds hell of a lot similar to Opus when pronounced!

I love the theoretical, idealistic conception of the system of trial by a jury of your peers. But I hate the reality that is a system of justice which does everything in its power to manipulate juries into being predictable and malleable cogs in the justice machine. Bear in mind that I am referring to the American system � I don�t know enough about the idiosyncrasies elsewhere to comment.

Most of the complaints about jury duty that you folks have put forward so far are with regards to the compensation, which is quite poor. I am forced to agree that it is a serious problem. First of all, it tends to make people less-than-enthusiastic about their jury duty, which could adversely affect their performance of that duty. Second, it disproportionately results in intelligent, motivated, career-driven individuals being excluded from serving (since they actively seek to be excused). These are exactly the type of people who should be on a jury, not Jack the unemployed alcoholic.

But before I go into further detail with what I perceive as the grim reality of jury duty, I�d like to spend a little time talking about how great it could be � potentially.

Jury duty and voting are the only two ways that your average citizen can directly affect the workings of the government which presides over us. However, while the effect of our votes may have more collective influence on the direction of our nation, or state, or county, than any decisions made during deliberation, serving as a juror provides us with the unique opportunity to have considerable influence on one very particular case, not just one vote among thousands, or millions. Your actions and choices as a juror can profoundly affect the lives of many people involved either directly or indirectly in the case which you are assigned to.

Particularly noteworthy, as I mentioned in my original post, is the power of jury nullification. Most jurors are completely uninformed of the extent of their rights and responsibilities. When you are called for jury duty, your responsibility is not to carefully weigh the evidence presented in court, apply it literally to the exact wording of the applicable laws, and mechanically reach whatever verdict this formula leads you to. No, your responsibility is one thing: justice.

If you, as a juror, believe that justice requires you to refuse to enforce a law, you are not only well within your rights to refuse to do so, but also have a responsibility to vote in whatever manner you feel will bring about a just resolution to the matters at hand. If you feel a law is inherently wrong, or is being applied to a situation in which it doesn�t make sense, or that the accused is being made an example of, you can refuse to convict on those grounds alone, and there isn�t a damn thing that any lawyer or judge can do about it. If you feel it is appropriate, you also have the right to reduce the charges against the defendant � as long as there are �lesser included offenses� specified in law. You can ask the judge to list and explain them, along with the potential punishments that go along with each, if it helps you reach a just verdict.

In a very real sense, jury duty is the last remnant of direct democracy. Your power as juror is absolute. You can make whatever decision you feel is just, and no one can question you about it. Because of this, I really like the idea of trial by jury. It puts the power back in the hands of the people. But, alas, the reality of the situation is quite different.

To understand why it is different, you have to understand how juries are selected: that is, by the lawyers involved in the case. The lawyers do not like this idealistic jury. They would much prefer a jury which would believe whatever they told them to be the absolute truth, and apply the evidence presented in predictable ways. Hence, the vast majority of lawyers seek to stock the jury with people they feel can be easily manipulated.

The result is that it�s genuinely difficult for any qualified person to get onto a jury. Do you have a generous educational background? Bye. Do you have strong philosophical, political, or ethical opinions? Next please. Are you aware of the world around you, keeping up with world events? Get out. Do you have a good job, a position which holds great responsibility and requires strong decision-making skills? Forget about it. Are you fully informed of your rights and responsibilities as a juror? Go home.

And so juries are stocked with mindless, ignorant automatons. The lawyers each try to manipulate the jury, and whoever is the better manipulator wins. Somewhere along the way, the concept of justice got lost.

The result?

Murders walk free.
Innocent men are put to death.
Morons get multi-million dollar settlements for their own stupidity.

It is a difficult puzzle to solve. First, people need to want the opportunity to be a juror, rather than resenting it. Hence, I would propose forcing their employers to pay them overtime for the duration of the juror�s service. Self-employed jurors could receive a generous compensation from the state. Second, lawyers can�t select juries. It defeats the purpose of having a jury. There are other and better ways to remove potentially biased jurors than having the lawyers on each side of a case interrogate them and throw away anyone they don�t like.

That�s all I have to say right now, but maybe I�ll add some more later. Any comments?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter When you are called for jury duty, your responsibility is not to carefully weigh the evidence presented in court, apply it literally to the exact wording of the applicable laws, and mechanically reach whatever verdict this formula leads you to. No, your responsibility is one thing: justice.

I guess you've never been a juror. You're given very specific instructions on what you can and can't consider. The punishment for a crime is also out of your hands. Juries do the best they can to provide justice in the frame work they're allowed to operate in. "Justice"? Sounds like you've been reading too many John Grisham novels.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I guess you've never been a juror. You're given very specific instructions on what you can and can't consider. The punishment for a crime is also out of your hands. Juries do the best they can to provide justice in the frame work they're allowed to operate in. "Justice"? Sounds like you've been reading too many John Grisham novels.

You can disregard any or all those instructions at your discretion.

But don't take my word for it:

http://www.fija.org/

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You can disregard any or all those instructions at your discretion.

Ok I learned something new today "Jury Nullification". Well it's a doubled edge sword. From what I just read, it was used in the 50's to acquit white racists in the south, but also could be used to ignore unjust laws. I think it falls into the category of a soldier right to disobey his commanding officer if it violates the rules of war. It's obviously a power that should be used sparingly otherwise chaos would ensue.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What? What?? I didn't say nothing

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Do most jobs have to give you a paid leave for jury duty, because ours simply do not?

I was merely answering your question.

the day i turned 18 was election day, and not voting in Australia is illegal. a month later i got my jury summons *yay*

I found the judicial system to be extremely slow, after sitting in a room for several hours i was finally summoned to the courtroom. The case was a 45 year old man who raped a 16 year old boy multiple times, 2 years before i was born. Unfortunately I was dismissed before i got to make my big scene at pointing out the irony on swearing the truth on a book of lies

quote:

Arbiter And so juries are stocked with mindless, ignorant automatons. The lawyers each try to manipulate the jury, and whoever is the better manipulator wins. Somewhere along the way, the concept of justice got lost.

To take further advantage of the idiots in the jury are the top tier Lawyers that are also trained hypnotists. They use persuasion (manipulation) techniques like pace and lead, where the lawyer points out undisputed and banal truths to the jury, which are then followed by a priori evidence, and finished up with conjecture. The banality of the lawyers initial argument is a powerful catalyst when mixed with jurors that have an attention span of fish, and who are more interested on what they will be served for lunch than the judicial process.

A voice roll technique is also used by these lawyers, their voices have been trained to sound as if the speaker were talking to the beat of a metronome (between 45 and 60 bpm - average heart rate) or they emphasize every word in a monotonous, patterned style

Suggestability is increased and judgement is impaired.

Politicians also do this:
Pace and Lead eg.
Saddam is a murderer (Pace)
He has murdered thousands of his own people (Pace)
Saddam is an imminent threat to the USA (Lead)

Carefully planned speach and you have duped the masses

I have to hand it to the Christians though, the psychology of brainwashing is one area of science where they excel

If you're interested the Brainwashing Manual by L.Ron Hubbard is an interesting read

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.