Jury Duty

I was willing to serve, but it seemed important to them to know if any of the prospective jurors had relatives in law enforcement. I 'fessed up, they bounced me.

There was also a homicide detective they got rid of instantly, especially when he said, "I never arrested anyone who wasn't guilty."

Plus, two people got bounced because they didn't speak English.

But you could tell by the second round of jury selection (they did it in groups of 14 while the remaining people sat in the back of the courtroom listening on) that people knew what to say to get out of it and were embellishing everything they could to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Some also say it is the duty of juries to not convict people of laws they find unjust, and if people were more diligent, hell, we may not have the ridiculous prison overpopulation or war on drugs we have now.

---

they wpould be wrong. you are there to apply the law as it is expalined to you and give the case a fair trial, not play vigilante from the bench. If you want to change laws, there are official channels to go through, but pretending that you are given the right to enforce the law only as you see fit is incredibly problematic, you arent a detective, you arent a forensic scientist, and lets be fully frank here, you are not a fucking constitutional scholar, you do not have the right to waltze in there and think you can just start creating the law because you think it should be a certain way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Im not the only one who believes in this, slugger. And its a concept thats been around for hundreds of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Im not the only one who believes in this, slugger. And its a concept thats been around for hundreds of years.

---

yeah, so have a lot of ideas, that alone does not validate it. i stand by what i said, using jury duty to apply your interpretation of the law on a case, rather than i dont know, listening impartially and rendering judgement as you are instructed to to protect the constitutional rights of those you are injudgment of, is vigilantism, nothing more.

Jury duty should be entirely voluntarily. Especially for small business owners that can't leave their workplaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

yeah, so have a lot of ideas, that alone does not validate it. i stand by what i said, using jury duty to apply your interpretation of the law on a case, rather than i dont know, listening impartially and rendering judgement as you are instructed to to protect the constitutional rights of those you are injudgment of, is vigilantism, nothing more.

---

Keeping a defendant from conviction because of tyrannical and unjust laws is a pretty blatant way to protect his constitutional rights IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Keeping a defendant from conviction because of tyrannical and unjust laws is a pretty blatant way to protect his constitutional rights IMO.

---

rewriting and applying your own interpretation of settled law based on personal fancy is a pretty blatent way to violate contsitutional rights imo of course.


ok so i had to sound it out a few times to get it said right :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

rewriting and applying your own interpretation of settled law based on personal fancy is a pretty blatent way to violate contsitutional rights imo of course.

---

Lawyers and Congressmen and the President do it every fucking day.

I would rather get shot in the face than vote guilty on a drug case... current drug policy in the US is deeply deeply offensive to me as a free human being and makes me sick. Its not a matter of personal fancy, and its not a matter of trying to gain power (like what lawyers and Congressmen and the Prez do), its a matter of standing up for what you believe in as a human being and American citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Lawyers and Congressmen and the President do it every fucking day.

I would rather get shot in the face than vote guilty on a drug case... current drug policy in the US is deeply deeply offensive to me as a free human being and makes me sick. Its not a matter of personal fancy, and its not a matter of trying to gain power (like what lawyers and Congressmen and the Prez do), its a matter of standing up for what you believe in as a human being and American citizen.

---

well, we seem to agree slightly on this topic, but, when we vote in the lawmakers, we are putting them in to write the laws, and to be reviewed by the supreme court, and facing veto by the executive branch of the government (in the case of congress, in the case of the prez its congress who is the second check) so everything they do is, in theory checked by 2 major sources, 3 if you count the fact that congress and the prez both need to be elected, and they do give a broad overview of their legislative temperment in the election, so you could say that the first check is the people themselves. not saying that is perfect, but its how it is set out to be in the constitution,and thats much more oversight than a person who pops into a jury selection intent on delivering a verdict based on his own interpretation of the constitution.

we agree on a lot of the things that make you mad too, but i try to get them changed through appeals to my congressman, my voting, and my financial support of specific lobbying groups(and lemmie tell ya, i KNOW that one works). when a court preceding is started, there is a certian assumption of process adn settled set of law that both the defence and prosecution are working under, to bring in a person who is operating on their own ruleset voids the constitutional rights of both parties because the defence and prosecution cant give competent councel under this new set of rules, that comprimises the rights of at least one of the parties.

If you dont like laws, by all means wor to change them, i know i do, as much as i can, but, if you try to bring in some grand ideal to the jury process, then you are comprimising the rights of all parties invilved, it is not your right to legislate from the stands.

Thanks for the US government lesson frostwolf. In case you havent realized this yet some links in that glorious chain of checks and balances appear to be missing right now.

The only grand ideal Im talking about bringing into the courtroom is "justice" which yes sadly seems to be lacking from courtrooms today. Jury nullification is absolutely a right entitled onto jurists, in extreme cases. Two extreme cases I can think of are drug law-related and California 3 strikes. But again this is very contentious so if you dont agree Im probably not going to convince you.