bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Interesting rulings out of the Supreme Court today.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I'm still waiting to get jury duty to **** over everyone.

Compulsory jury selection is fucked in many ways. If I'm going to have to sit in a room with a bunch of dipshit ********, by force, I'm certainly not going to make it easy on anyone. The Idea that the jury selection pool is tied to voter registration in itself is a bad start.

but as fucked as it is, it's better than this:


caught stealing? Get your fingers chopped off or shot in the face on the spot.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

or WV:

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

While I commend your sense of civic responsibility, I think we must admit that a more prevalent attitude towards jury duty is that emoted by Braineack, to wit it is something that ought to be avoided, and that the only people who wind up on juries are those too stupid to get out of it.

That's not been my own experience personally (people who talk big seem to get humble real fast once they're actually sitting in the box), but it's certainly a common perception.



Yes, I'm not surprised to hear that from you. "The judicial system is broken, so let me make it worse!"



You'd prefer that jury service be on a volunteer basis?

It's not. At least, not any more. States figured out that lots of people don't register to vote, so it's now much more commonly tied to drivers license registration.




So, if I'm doing the math, that's:

• One vote in favor of "Yes, it's ok for the state to deprive individuals of small amounts of liberty and money in order to provide criminal defendants with due process and counsel,"
  
• One vote for "It's ok for the state to deprive individuals of small amounts of liberty, in order to provide criminal defendants with due process, but not to provide them with counsel," and
  
• One vote for "It's never ok for anyone to do anything. I want to watch the world burn."

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It's less about making it worse and more about nullifying bad laws, stopping the State from railroading citizens, and making sure fellow peers work hard for their costly decision.

It's never a perfect system, and I don't really feel that it's depriving you of any liberty--It gives citizens a chance to directly engage in the process of the law. They compensates you (or at least require you employer to), and they will release you if you really can't serve.

It would be strives better if they changed the way they picked jurists, and not just ones too stupid to be able to get out of jury duty. It would be more strives better if it would be comprised of volunteers intent on participating in the law (like voting) and not forced servitude.


If citizens actually took justice in America seriously, jurists and appointed defenses would be paid much better. But we like lynch mobs in america still, under some sort of guise of justice (see: george zimmerman)


also from FFX Counties Q&A:

this is why I have been selected into the pool twice; yet my wife never will.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm sure that some places still do it the old fashioned way. I know that NJ draws from driver's license records. I was called to serve there, despite having never registered to vote in NJ.



I'm still having a hard time figuring out if you actually have an opinion as to whether the fulfillment of due process justifies minor deprivations of liberty and money.

1: Not everyone has a cushy job like you & I, where our employers pay us to serve on juries. The last time I was called when when I was running my own consulting business, and nobody compensated me for the time I lost.

2: Ok, so I wave my wand and juries are now volunteer-only. What about the right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor?" Can I also refuse to give witness testimony?

3: How about counsel? You are definitely in favor of granting criminal defendants free counsel, and seem to argue that we need to spend even more money than we presently do. What cap do you propose for this spending? How many billable hours should an appointed attorney spend defending a man charged with kidnapping, rape and murder, in the face of reliable witnesses and uncontroversial evidence?

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Nope...

"The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law, does not require employers to pay employees for jury duty service. Consequently, unless provided by state law or company policy, an employer does not have to pay an employee for serving on a jury."

"Very few states require employers to pay employees for the time they spend on jury duty. Among those that do have such a requirement, the amount of pay will vary from state to state. For example:

Alabama: Employer must pay full-time employees their usual compensation less the fee or compensation received for serving as a juror.
Connecticut: Employers must pay full-time employees their regular wages for the first five days of jury duty, or any part thereof, unless they are considered temporary or casual employees.
Colorado: Employers must pay regular employees their regular wages for the first three days of jury duty.
Massachusetts: Employers must pay all employees - part-time, temporary and casual - for the first three days or jury duty, or part thereof.
New York: An employer of ten or fewer employees may withhold the full wages of an employee absent from work on account of jury service. An employer of ten or more employees must pay to an employee serving on jury duty the first $40.00 of that employee's daily wage for the first three days of jury service."

Jury Duty Pay | LegalMatch Law Library

In OH you can register to vote when getting a drivers license at the BMV (assuming age 18+).

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

The above is why you will likely never be picked for jury duty on a case that matters. It is my understanding that when they select jurors they do their best to filter out people who are willing to consider that the law itself is flawed. I believe they do this by asking a question to the effect of "Are you willing to try the defendant truly and fully within the basis of the laws in question?"

Here is an example of a juror with an agenda that was tried themselves: Holdout Juror Accused of Criminal Contempt - latimes

Believe me, if I get picked for jury duty I will not let the law dictate my morality, but at the same time I won't hide how I feel during the Voir Dire process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Question for you only because of the way you worded your response.

Would you allow your morality to dictate guilt or innocence regardless of the law?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

See, now that really disturbs me.

If I am ever tried for a criminal offense, I want to be judged against the law, not against the personal feelings of the jurors. Personal feelings are *far* too fickle to form the basis for a common system of justice.

There are lots of people walking around in this country whose personal morality tells them that:

• Homosexuality is a crime
• "Someone else" should pay for their birth control, their rent, their food, their cell phone, etc.
• Abortion is muder
• No private citizen should be allowed to own a gun
• Pre-marital sex is a crime
• Inter-racial marriage is a crime
• Black children should not be allowed to attend "white schools"
• It's wrong to eat pork, scallops, and cheeseburgers
• Rape is impossible
• It's ok to kill dogs which annoy you
• Jews, Muslims and women cannot be "real" citizens
• Donald Trump is qualified to be President of the United States
• Hellaflush and Stance are legitimate trends in automotive design

And that really bothers me. The whole reason for having stare decisis, and for that matter written laws in the first place, is so that criminal justice can be applied consistently and uniformly, rather than changing on a whim. What you're describing is little better than lynch mobs.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

In my case I'm talking about the other end of the spectrum. I don't believe in throwing someone in jail for a minor drug offense where nobody got hurt. Stuff along those lines.

Monk

iTrader: (3)

Which is still bothersome.
Unfortunately, as Scott said, our system is not perfect, nor can it possibly be.
The ideal method of arriving at a verdict would be to separate all emotion from the decision making process and "judge against the law" as Joe puts it.
i agree with Joe in theory and am appalled that people are so quick to make decisions based on emotion.
However; we are unable to make decisions without emotion.
Decisions Are Emotional, Not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Big Think

It is obvious (in my eyes) that, in the case of criminality, some people must be deprived of liberty for any sort of society to work at all.
The best we can do is make damn sure that said deprivation isn't arbitrary or malicious.
In this context, I do believe it iis acceptable to be deprived of the minimal amount of liberty possible to ensure someone else isn't deprived of ALLOFIT.
Human nature makes reconciling ideals and reality impossible in many cases.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

and that is why I'm so vocal about innocent people getting charged with bullshit crimes and having to convince these "peers" you didn't actually violate the law--the law itself doesn't really matter to them, nor does a reasonable doubt, or evidence, or most other things that actually matter when rendering a decision.

But at the same time, if I have a promising football career ahead of me, I want to be able to convince my peers that I'M the victim of my crimes, not the girl I raped--she'll be fine.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

Requiring me to serve as a juror is actually an extension of my rights. Regardless of my actions, circumstances, or life choices, there may come a time when I am required to stand trial to defend myself against felonious actions that I did or did not commit. I expect a jury of persons who are not connected with the government to decide my guilt or innocence. For that right, I also accept that there will come many times when I will have to be one of those unconnected persons.

On the flipside, I make daily life choices regarding my health and ability to pay for healthcare. At the same time, there are millions of Americans who make life choices to avoid paying for healthcare because they know they can receive it at reduced or no cost if they can demonstrate that they can't afford it. What they can't get from the government is an iPhone, or "Sounds and thirteens put on my cavalier" - so the choices that they make are such that I will always be paying for their "needs" so that they can afford their "desires" - and that, economically speaking, is a backwards system. The correct time to ask me to chip in for their healthcare is when the phone they use takes quarters, their "home" is roughly the size of a college dorm room or else it is shared with multiple families, their "cavalier" says "huffy" on the side of it, and they buy their Air Jordans from play-it-again sports.

There may come a time when my insurance caps out for whatever reason, and in that instance, I'll be forced to bargain with the hospital for lower cost alternatives before discussing payment plans, but you won't be responsible for my choices.

A similar though better argument than the jury duty argument is the military draft argument. Many men have been told to sacrifice their young lives so that older and less capable people may live long and prosper. The main cultural difference between then and now is the value that we place on human life has increased exponentially. How many American fighting men have died in wars since September 12th, 2001? The first number that I found looking was 6,639 killed. That's an obscene number of us that have died in the last 15 years.

How many died on 6 June, 1944? What about the 5 weeks that followed?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I understand that. But not everyone is highly liberal in their thinking.


Say that you're at a party or a club. You're a little high, and you start hitting on some drunk, slutty girl. Somehow, despite all odds, you manage to talk her into a semi-private setting. You're being pretty obnoxious and lewd, maybe you get a little handsy. You're rubbing her **** through the fabric of her blouse and panties, you maybe threaten her a little when she says "Get off me you jerk!" and you successfully get her top off before she finally manages to extricate herself from the situation and run crying out the door with the assistance of her drunk, slutty girlfriends.


The next day, she cries rape. You get arrested, and you're charged with criminal sexual assault under Illinois Criminal Code 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20, which is a class 1 felony carrying a sentence of 4-15 years in pound-me-in-the-*** prison for the first offence.



Using the proceeds from your legitimate day job, you hire a competent lawyer. And she* correctly points out that under Illinois law, sexual assault requires "Sexual penetration."

* = in my examples, competent lawyers are usually female, mostly because I had a crush on Erica Sutter in law school.

Now, under Illinois law, you're probably in the clear. You wanted to penetrate her. You were trying like heck to get the clam to pole dance, but you were never able to actually find a parking space for the beef bus in tuna town. You'll likely get nailed for some lesser charge, but you're not spending the next decade in prison.


Except that, because your life tends to suck in general, you've got a jury filled with 12 people who, like my mother, are all bible-thumpin' conservatives who believe that the Orlando massacre was a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah. And, more specifically, their morality in this situation is shaped by Matthew, chapter 4, verses 27-28, in which Jesus says "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart."


... and you're fucked. To them, adultery is a capital crime (Deuteronomy 22:22), so not only are you guilty, but they're going to recommend to the judge that the maximum sentence be imposed. And that's how you wound up serving 10-15 at Stateville Correctional Center. Tell your cellmate I said hello, and you better believe we'll be sending you letters filled with glitter and dick confetti.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Oh come on Joe... You know he'll win on appeal, and if lucky will be out on bail during the appeal and only spend his next 5 years salary on legal expenses because of that jury taking the law into it's own hands.

Either way, he's still fucked. You made your point well.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

Regarding the jury's duty to decide solely on if the law was or was not broken. Historically, juries in the USA had the right to "jury nullification" where they could find a defendant Not Guilty due to belief that the law in question was unjust.

Some say that was part of the reason for jury trials, the prevention of abuse of power by the government.

This was used during times of slavery defendants were found not guilty in regards to the Futigive Slave Act, even though they were technically guilty.

It was also used during prohibition.

I could not find any Supreme Court rulings on the subject, but, indeed, in modern times it has fallen by the wayside.

From a Constitutional standpoint, there seems to be not any verbiage that constrains the jury to consider only the legal aspects.

Generally, the concept does not give the jury the right to find an innocent defendant guilty, but does allow them to find a guilty person innocent of an unjust law.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Mary Surratt was denied a jury of her peers and look how she wound up...

Wok and Roll, baby.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

In the context of a legal argument, that's actually the biggest compliment which you can give someone. So thank you.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Military Tribunal... not the same. Today she would've been a terrorist or considered as such.