Close
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Iceman sniper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    16,987

    Default

    and as to the question at hand, I think the system we have now does a pretty good job. the cops have their job to do, as does the DA, the defendant can get a lawyer to represent, they all go through the process of picking jurors, the judge is supposed to just follow the law although I feel at times that isn't exactly the case, but the end result is usually relatively fair and just.

    professional paid jurors would just be another tax hike when the people could judge their fellow citizens instead.

    the system isn't perfect by any means but I feel it does a pretty good job.
    All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break em for no one.

    My Feedback

  2. #2
    Machine Gunner Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Stone City
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Semi-related, have any of you heard of Jury Nullification? One of the reasons for having a Jury of your Peers is that when a trial comes up, not only is the accused on trial, but so is the law. If a Jury believes that a person is guilty of breaking that law, but that in this instance what they did was correct and the law was not, they should vote not guilty. So say in theory someone was driving their sick child to the hospital and got pulled over for speeding, or any other situation in which you feel there was no victim and the law is unjust -- you are within your rights to say not guilty.

    Also, if you just want to get out of jury duty, during the voire dire process where they select jurors, ask about jury nullification. Nothing will get a DA to kick you off a panel faster than asking about Jury Nullification -- it means you might rule against their case, and they care about win/loss ratio.

  3. #3
    Death Eater Troublco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    KFSU (Ft. Sumner, NM)
    Posts
    4,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier View Post
    Semi-related, have any of you heard of Jury Nullification? One of the reasons for having a Jury of your Peers is that when a trial comes up, not only is the accused on trial, but so is the law. If a Jury believes that a person is guilty of breaking that law, but that in this instance what they did was correct and the law was not, they should vote not guilty. So say in theory someone was driving their sick child to the hospital and got pulled over for speeding, or any other situation in which you feel there was no victim and the law is unjust -- you are within your rights to say not guilty.

    Also, if you just want to get out of jury duty, during the voire dire process where they select jurors, ask about jury nullification. Nothing will get a DA to kick you off a panel faster than asking about Jury Nullification -- it means you might rule against their case, and they care about win/loss ratio.
    I've heard of it, and I've heard the same thing. They don't like the fact that ordinary folks can do that, so they squelch it.
    SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM

    Herding cats and favoring center

  4. #4
    Rebuilt from Salvage TFOGGER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Aurora
    Posts
    7,789

    Default

    The system as it stands is not perfect, as most if not all of us have prejudices and preconceptions, as well as situational biases. That's what voir dire is about, both sides have equal opportunity to try to seat a jury that's favorable to their case. Most attorneys actually prefer jurors with a minimal knowledge of the law, as they can be more easily influenced. Professional juries would remove one of the powerful controls from the justice system because, if they are employed by the court system, they would have a vested interest in making sure that the conviction rate stayed high to ensure revenue to the court. Sure, jury duty is not the most convenient thing in the world, but I will serve if called(again), as I feel it is a better system than many if not most other trial processes, and I would like that system to be available to me if the need ever arose.

  5. #5
    High Power Shooter
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Colo. Springs
    Posts
    970

    Default

    The judge is there to hear the case, if you don't want a jury. You would get a decision based on law and not mitigating factors.

    I have been through several trials dealing with contract issues, damage calculations, business valuations. The juries I dealt with were generally good and look at things in a common sense way. i.e yes the contract says this and is in favor of party b, but party b was out to screw party a. That is just wrong. Verdict in favor of party a.

    I have also seen the judge overrule the juries. That is a bitter pill after spending $50,000 on a trial and getting a favorable verdict.

    There are a lot of reasons not the trust the court systems. Fairness and logic are lost sometimes.

  6. #6
    Witness Protection Reject rondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    8,308
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Can I vote for reinstating public executions? I'll bring potato salad.....

  7. #7
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Make it hotdogs, burritos, and gyros and I'll come. I won't even open my mouth for potato salad.
    "There are no finger prints under water."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •