Jury duty!

[psteve]

Is it slavery then, to 'make' us all vote too?
Indenture perhaps, by some abstract of the word. But not slavery.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Is it slavery then, to 'make' us all vote too?
Indenture perhaps, by some abstract of the word. But not slavery.

Voting is voluntary. There is no law that says you must vote. As bad as indentured servitude was, and it was often VERY bad, in most cases that was voluntary also. They could make jury duty voluntary, or hire professionals like they do in some countries.

People that resist jury duty are liable for heavy fines and even jail time. If you don't show up for jury duty, they can issue subpoenas and warrants and make your life hell. That's just wrong, but if you support it there's probably not much I can say to persuade you otherwise.

[MajMike]

If you really don't want to do jury duty, don't register to vote, it's that simple.

However, if you want to participate in the democratic process by voting you also take upon yourself the responsibility of jury duty. So technically, you 'volunteered' for it by registering to vote.

I understand that JD can suck and be time-consuming, but I know I want a fair trial and attentive jury if I am on trial. To that end, I must hold up my end by participating. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Now, I have no problems with those with legitimate excuses, medical or otherwise.

[Breukelen advocaat]

If you really don't want to do jury duty, don't register to vote, it's that simple.

However, if you want to participate in the democratic process by voting you also take upon yourself the responsibility of jury duty. So technically, you 'volunteered' for it by registering to vote.

I understand that JD can suck and be time-consuming, but I know I want a fair trial and attentive jury if I am on trial. To that end, I must hold up my end by participating. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Now, I have no problems with those with legitimate excuses, medical or otherwise.

It's not "that simple". Registering to vote is not the only way they get you. In California, and other places, they use records from the motor vehicle dept. I would imagine that it varies, and other methods are used in different places as well. One man, in La., who has been charged with killing nine people, and possibly many more, was picked for jury duty by computer. The story is at the bottom of this post.

Making criminals out of people for refusing jury duty is even dumber than the laws against using pot.

In my experience, people will often go with the herd, when deciding a case, to get out early. Sometimes guilty people are released for this reason. This is particularly true around holiday seasons.

They send my wife notices every chance they get, although she's served a number of times. It gets to the point where you wish you had a mild criminal record so that they'll leave you alone. Other people never get called, and there is no explanation for this.

The trial of O.J. Simpson is a perfect example of jury stupidity, prosecution incompetence, or (probably) both.

I've seen people do this in jury selection:
Potential juror says heâ??s a racist and a liar
Cape Cod man's claims earn sharp rebuke from judge, may lead to charges
Potential juror says he�s a liar - Criminal Peculiarity - MSNBC.com


Blind justice: Alleged killer drawn for grand jury
Computer picked name, not knowing man was in jail on murder charges
Alleged killer drawn for grand jury duty - Criminal Peculiarity - MSNBC.com

[MajMike]

First of all I understand your personal position, it does sound like you have done your duty several times and have a good reason why you cannot now.

Secondly, the DMV process (as well as most others that select for JD) is again a voluntary process. How one can live in modern America without transportation I don't know (except big cities), but it is not compulsory.

Lastly, with the problems in our court system (I can't bring myself to call it a 'justice' system), isn't JD a chance to try and make a difference?

Just my $0.02. Peace.

[Breukelen advocaat]

First of all I understand your personal position, it does sound like you have done your duty several times and have a good reason why you cannot now.

Secondly, the DMV process (as well as most others that select for JD) is again a voluntary process. How one can live in modern America without transportation I don't know (except big cities), but it is not compulsory.

Lastly, with the problems in our court system (I can't bring myself to call it a 'justice' system), isn't JD a chance to try and make a difference?

Just my $0.02. Peace.

I do not drive, do not have a license, and have never owned a car. I have a NYS DMV identification card, which I need. They can get me from that. This has nothing to do with "volunteering" for jury duty, even if you have a Driver's License or permit.

I do not agree with the jury system as a method of determining the outcome of criminal trials, not just the anti-civil liberties aspects of forcing people to serve.

I am surprised that on a board dedicated to the freedom of choice to use a plant, people are in support of laws that can put otherwise law-abiding citizens in jail for not serving on a jury.

It's ironic, since the courts can routinely let vicious criminals go free on a technicality, but law abiding citizens are rousted and forced to work, under threat of prison sentences and heavy fines, in an environment they despise.

It's not just me, many jurors I've met are angered by this system. What this really means in terms of miscarriages of justice, the disruption of lives, and other effects, we'll probably never know.

[psteve]

I do not drive, do not have a license, and have never owned a car. I have a NYS DMV identification card, which I need. They can get me from that. This has nothing to do with "volunteering" for jury duty, even if you have a Driver's License or permit.

I do not agree with the jury system as a method of determining the outcome of criminal trials, not just the anti-civil liberties aspects of forcing people to serve.

I am surprised that on a board dedicated to the freedom of choice to use a plant, people are in support of laws that can put otherwise law-abiding citizens in jail for not serving on a jury.

It's ironic, since the courts can routinely let vicious criminals go free on a technicality, but law abiding citizens are rousted and forced to work, under threat of prison sentences and heavy fines, in an environment they despise.

It's not just me, many jurors I've met are angered by this system. What this really means in terms of miscarriages of justice, the disruption of lives, and other effects, we'll probably never know.

I think it's sad that people see it as a chore.
I see it as a privilege and a responsibility.
If you ever get busted, you'd better hope that someone like me (or you) is on the jury.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I think it's sad that people see it as a chore.
I see it as a privilege and a responsibility.
If you ever get busted, you'd better hope that someone like me (or you) is on the jury.

Once again, you are simplifying the reason people are opposed to it. We are not calling it a "chore". I do not think that being forced into somthing is a "privlege", either.

It is wrong for many reasons, with the first and foremost being that people without a legal education do not have sufficient information, and are forced to participate.

You do not seem to understand that even if you are opposed to a law, you still must convict those that are found to have broken it - which means that it is not permitted to vote not guilty for somebody being tried for a pot offense, or any other crime, if the prosecution has sufficiently demonstrated their guilt. I am against the criminalization of all drugs, and have had to vote on Grand Jury hearings to indict people. Thankfully, none for weed, yet, but that could be forthcoming as well if I get called and can't get out of it.

[Nation_1ne]

Once again, you are simplifying the reason people are opposed to it. We are not calling it a "chore". I do not think that being forced into somthing is a "privlege", either.

It is wrong for many reasons, with the first and foremost being that people without a legal education do not have sufficient information, and are forced to participate.

You do not seem to understand that even if you are opposed to a law, you still must convict those that are found to have broken it - which means that it is not permitted to vote not guilty for somebody being tried for a pot offense, or any other crime, if the prosecution has sufficiently demonstrated their guilt. I am against the criminalization of all drugs, and have had to vote on Grand Jury hearings to indict people. Thankfully, none for weed, yet, but that could be forthcoming as well if I get called and can't get out of it.

After reading your explanations as to why you don't want to o it I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's sickening that you can get into serious trouble, or get hassle just because you don't do it. Yet again it's another one of those frustrating situations the government put you in and you can't do anything about it. As I've gotten older I can't help but constantly feel pissed off with everything they do. It always seems they are interested in their own goals rather than the public's. Pisses me off so much just thinking about it.

[Breukelen advocaat]

After reading your explanations as to why you don't want to o it I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's sickening that you can get into serious trouble, or get hassle just because you don't do it. Yet again it's another one of those frustrating situations the government put you in and you can't do anything about it. As I've gotten older I can't help but constantly feel pissed off with everything they do. It always seems they are interested in their own goals rather than the public's. Pisses me off so much just thinking about it.

Try explaining to a group of diverse people in a Grand Jury room that meth use is a personal decision, or that magic mushrooms are not dangerous. It's like talking to the wall. I know this, because I've been there.

They've got eighteen-year-old kids (In my jury duty experience), with little knowledge or life experience on these juries, with foreign-born illiterates, racists of various backgrounds, alcholics, religous nuts, and other unqualified people - and they won't listen to reason. In fact, if the law says something, they are required only to obey that and cast their own opinion (if they even have one) aside.

It pisses me off to no end, as well.