Posted: 4/12/2004 11:34:18 PM EDT
|
I served jury duty today and luckily I didn't even get called to be questioned by attorneys or the judge. However, I was thinking about asking the lawyer/judge what this is since I've heard that they don't like jurors who know about it, hence I would be excused. So I have a couple of questions. One, what is it really? I have an idea but I'm not 100% sure. Two, are there any legal ramifications for asking about it? I don't want to hear that "it's your duty to serve don't weasel out of it" bullshit. I mean can the judge hold me in contempt or does he have no right to? |
|
The idea is that jurors judge the law as well as whether the defendent violated it. It serves as a sort of sanity check on the rest of the legal system. If the public thinks a law odious, they can simply refuse to enforce it via the jury system. In the US it was perhaps most famously used in fugitive slave cases. Northern juries would refuse to convict people for helping fugitive slaves from the south. There's an excellent chance you'd get challenged off the jury by the prosecution if you asked about it. |
|
Courts decide the unconstitutionality of laws, not jurors. Jury nullification requires lieing under oath (at least around here) as the Court will require the jurors to swear to follow the law as he gives it. If you don't like the law talk to the legislature. Jury nullification is the reason OJ walks free today. Edit-oops didn't answer the question-the judge should certainly not hold you in contempt for merely asking about it, I would think a good judge would rattle off something like "Jury nullification is not legal or recognized in the State of Blah blah. As a juror you will be required to decide the case based on the law of the State of Blah blah, if you feel that you cannot follow the the laws of the State of Blah blah then you should not sit as a juror in this case" The attorneys might or might no kick you off anyway. |
|
My employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and having to drive to downtown LA to serve is a massive pain in the ass on top of losing wages. Basically I was wondering if asking this would get me in any trouble with an over zealous judge. Essentially, if I was to ask it, then the prosecution would probably NOT want me on the case and excuse me, correct? There are no consequences for just asking about it, correct? |
|
Quoted: Courts decide the unconstitutionality of laws, not jurors. Jury nullification requires lieing under oath (at least around here) as the Court will require the jurors to swear to follow the law as he gives it. If you don't like the law talk to the legislature. Jury nullification is the reason OJ walks free today. I think the reason is/was fear of sparking riots, idiot jurors (just what every side wants), and celebrity. |
|
Quoted: Courts decide the unconstitutionality of laws, not jurors. Jury nullification requires lieing under oath (at least around here) as the Court will require the jurors to swear to follow the law as he gives it. If you don't like the law talk to the legislature. Jury nullification is the reason OJ walks free today. Edit-oops didn't answer the question-the judge should certainly not hold you in contempt for merely asking about it, I would think a good judge would rattle off something like "Jury nullification is not legal or recognized in the State of Blah blah. As a juror you will be required to decide the case based on the law of the State of Blah blah, if you feel that you cannot follow the the laws of the State of Blah blah then you should not sit as a juror in this case" The attorneys might or might no kick you off anyway. Wrong. I'll be back tomorrow on this one. |
|
Quoted: How would you even bring it up? Would you say something to the effect "I will judge this case based upon Jury Nullification"? That sounds retarded, but you get my point (I hope) [:D] No, I was thinking something along the lines of "I've heard of jury nullification and was just wondering what it is, if you could explain it please." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Courts decide the unconstitutionality of laws, not jurors. Jury nullification requires lieing under oath (at least around here) as the Court will require the jurors to swear to follow the law as he gives it. If you don't like the law talk to the legislature. Jury nullification is the reason OJ walks free today. Edit-oops didn't answer the question-the judge should certainly not hold you in contempt for merely asking about it, I would think a good judge would rattle off something like "Jury nullification is not legal or recognized in the State of Blah blah. As a juror you will be required to decide the case based on the law of the State of Blah blah, if you feel that you cannot follow the the laws of the State of Blah blah then you should not sit as a juror in this case" The attorneys might or might no kick you off anyway. Wrong. I'll be back tomorrow on this one. |
|
Quoted: No. I'll have historical references. |
|
Aimless, Jury duty isn't a civic obligation. It is forced service via terror tactics used by the government (threats of fine and jail time). What else do they call civic duty or obligation? Being penalized for working your ass off and having to give part of it to the government? Wait, they call that income tax. What next, forced military service? The way I see it, the government has NO right to force me to serve on a jury because it causes me to lose my wages. I pay taxes. I vote. That is enough as far as I am concerned when it comes to "civic duty". Frankly I don't know about anyone else, but if I am on trial I don't want some pissed off person on the jury who doesn't want to be there and won't make a real effort to do the right thing. This is why I believe volunteer jury duty would be far better, much like a volunteer military. Failing that, they should pay a person his actual wages that he'd lose and have him serve closer to his home. The jury system is very unaccommodating and very unsympathetic to the people it forces to serve or else threatens them with fines and jail time. |
| I think you answered your own question, like the draft and taxes,jury duty is an obligation of belonging to our society. I had better things to do than sit around reading the newspaper in the courthouse for 1/2 a day, only to be sent home when the lawyers settled the case without ever picking a single juror; but like a lot of unpleasant responsibilities in life, they did not ask me, they told me. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: No. I'll have historical references. He asked what it is, not whether courts consider its legal. Which it must be or else all the OJ jurors would be in jail now according to you.[:D] |
|
I believe it is your duty to serve jury duty. If you were on trial and innocent wouldn't you want 12 intelligent people in the box? If you really don't want to serve just tell them you don't believe you can be fair and impartial. Either way you can say "Oh I think he is guilty or he wouldn't be here" or "I would never convict someone no matter what the evidence is" You will be excused for cause. Of coarse that is the chicken shit way out. By the way, you have no "civic duty" to vote. I wish fewer idiots and morons would vote. I don't understand why so many people say "just vote, it your duty" Bullshit only let taxpayers vote. |
|
Being forced to do something by the government doesn't make it right, let us understand that. Just because we are penalized for working, err forced to pay taxes doesn't make it right. Just because we are forced to register with the SS (when women aren't, strange), doesn't make it right. Just because we are forced to serve as jurors doesn't make it right. I don't believe forced jury duty is right, and will always be pissed off when I see a damn summons in my mailbox. As for wanting 12 intelligent people to judge me, of course. On the flip side I don't want 12 or even 2 pissed off people who don't want to be there and won't take it as seriously, either. The terror tactics the government employs to drag people away from their jobs, families, and more important obligations to serve as jurors also infuriates me. If it's a duty, hell what's to stop the government from decreeing whatever else it wants as a civic duty and forcing people to do it too? |
|
I served on a jury last year and once we closed the door to begine deliberations I quickly concluded that at least 75% of those people would be incapable of being in a jury of my [b]peers[/b]. I was scared of the thought of such boneheads making important decisions. Back on topic, try this: [url]http://www.fija.org/[/url] |
|
Quoted: Courts decide the unconstitutionality of laws, not jurors. Jury nullification requires lieing under oath (at least around here) as the Court will require the jurors to swear to follow the law as he gives it. If you don't like the law talk to the legislature. Jury nullification is the reason OJ walks free today. Have to disagree with you here. One way laws get changed or done away with is by jury nullification. I can get some quotes from Supreme Court Justices stting we not only have the right to judge the facts but the law also. It's why we are called a republic and aren't really a democracy. Democracy is just one man one vote, majority wins. With a republic your vote on the jury and/or a grand jury has more wieght than the one at the poll because your 1 vote nullifies the other 11 if you truly believe it to be a stupid law. And in regards to O.J., he walked because Marcia Clark and Christofer Darden did a lousy job presenting their case. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: No. I'll have historical references. Yes, they can accept the law as given to them but they still have the right to judge the law. If there was a law in effect stating that only firemen can rescue people that are drowning and you serve on a jury for someone that saved someone from drowning before the firemen arrived, are you going to vote guilty? You have accepted the law as given. The guy broke the law no question about it. If you vote guilty on something like that, we live in a police state. |
|
The "perjury/under oath" thing just doesn't hold water. If the "State" passed a law requiring eveyone to turn all male children under the age of 5 over to the "State" for "termination", and you sat on a jury deciding the case of a parent who refused, well...you took an oath guess you gotta convict. That's bullshit. The SS took an oath to Hitler and the administrators of the Russian Gulags took an oath to Stalin - JUST DOING YOUR JOB IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!!!! Everyday in this nation police and courts ruin peoples lives with arrest and conviction for simply exercising their Second Amendment rights. "Courts deciding what's Constitutional?" Well, we all see where that's gotten us. You seem to be forgetting the reason we have Article II of the Bill of Rights in the first place. It's to kick "their" asses when "they" get out of line, and last time I looked that was labled "insurection" and is "illegal." There is always a time when the MORAL thing to do confilicts with the LEGAL thing to do - welcome to adulthood. And if more of us actually sat on juries and practiced jury nullification then a whole lot of these BS gun laws would be unenforceable. |
|
As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)) Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)). Even where the defendant and his attorney enter into a formal stipulation admitting an element of the offense, the jury should be told merely that they may regard the matter to be "proved," if they wish, but the judge still cannot direct a verdict on that factual issue or take it away from the jury over the defendant's objection. United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 679-80 (4th Cir. 1996). All of these rules are designed, in part, to protect the jury's inviolable power to nullify and to avoid the reversible error always committed when "the wrong entity judge[s] the defendant guilty." Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578 (1986). Second, the roots of nullification also run deep into the (p.7)Double Jeopardy Clause. Even where the jury's verdict of not guilty seems indefensible, that clause prevents the State from pursuing even the limited remedy of a new trial. This rule, by design, gives juries the power to "err upon the side of mercy" by entering "an unassailable but unreasonable verdict of not guilty." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317 n.10 (1979). [red]The only Supreme Court Justice ever impeached, Samuel Chase, was charged with denying the right of jurors to judge the law. His defense argued, among other things, that: "As little can this respondent be justly charged with having, by any conduct of his, endeavored to 'wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact involved in the verdict which they were required to give.' He denies that he did at any time declare that the aforesaid counsel should not at any time address the jury, or did in any manner hinder them from addressing the jury on the law as well as on the facts arising in the case. It was expressly stated, in the copy of his opinion delivered as above set forth to William Lewis, that the jury had a right to determine the law as well as the fact: and the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas were expressly informed, before they declared their resolution to abandon the defence, that they were at liberty to argue the law to the jury." United States v. Fries, 9 F.Cas. 924, 934 (D. Pennsylvania, 1800).[/red] Some quotes by Founding Fathers: I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789 John Adams, who became the second U.S. President, in 1771 said of the juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Theophilus Parsons, "... a leading supporter of the Constitution of the United States in the convention of 1788 by which Massachusetts ratified the Constitution, (who was appointed by President Adams in 1801 to the post of Attorney General of the United States, but declined that office and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts in 1806) said: "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p.267. Quoted in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895), Dissenting Opinion: Gray, Shiras, JJ., 144. I really like this one: "It's easy for the public to ignore an unjust law, if the law operates behind closed doors and out of sight. But when jurors have to use a law to send a man to prison, they are forced to think long and hard about the justice of the law. And when the public reads newspaper accounts of criminal trials and convictions, they too may think about whether the convictions are just. As a result, jurors and spectators alike may bring to public debate more informed interest in improving the criminal law. Any law which makes many people uncomfortable is likely to attract the attention of the legislature. The laws on narcotics and abortion come to mind --and there must be others. The public adversary trial thus provides an important mechanism for keeping the substantive criminal law in tune with contemporary community values." D.C. Circuit Court Judge D. Bazelon, "The Adversary Process--Who Needs It?" 12th Annual James Madison Lecture, New York University School of Law (April, 1971), reprinted in 117 Cong. Rec. 5852, 5855 (daily ed. April 29, 1971). |
|
Quoted: Frankly I don't know about anyone else, but if I am on trial I don't want some pissed off person on the jury who doesn't want to be there and won't make a real effort to do the right thing. This is why I believe volunteer jury duty would be far better... Oh, please. You doth protest too much! As easy as it is to get out of jury duty, it can hardly be considered "forced". There have already been suggestions here. How about another? Just say "If the cops arrested him, he must be guilty" to the defendant's attorney. Poof! You're free! |
| What's wierd is that the lying (in Fla. at least) occurs when the jurors are instructed that they must follow the law as instructed even if they disagree with it. Although jurors are told that, appellate decisions recognize the right of jurors to engage in "nullification" or "jury pardons;" the existence of this right is the one exception to the rule that a party is entitled to have a jury instructed on all law relevant to the case. |
|
A.G - With that statement are you tring to say that makes it wrong by default, then? If so: Can... [brown][size=3]worms[/brown][/size=3]... [red][size=5]big[/red][/size=5]... The rest of your posts are summed up to me rather early on - [red]My employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and having to drive to downtown LA to serve is a massive pain in the ass on top of losing wages.[/red] Ask not what I can do for my country, rather what can my country do for me, eh? You are afforded certain protections by the systems this country has in place. Seeing as you enjoy the fruits of this system (wages from an employer,) it should only stand to reason that the system can allow for a few demands of you. And yes, the jury system is directly in control of certain key aspects of your just rewards, such as punishing companies that violate the minimum wage laws among [b]numerous[/b] others. However, sloth and self-gratification have long been both the vices and the inventive progenitors of our society (both being seen as neccessities,) so I am sure you'll be able to "hang" a man by cell phone in the somewhat near future. Yay for us! |
|
Quoted: As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)) Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)). Even where the defendant and his attorney enter into a formal stipulation admitting an element of the offense, the jury should be told merely that they may regard the matter to be "proved," if they wish, but the judge still cannot direct a verdict on that factual issue or take it away from the jury over the defendant's objection. United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 679-80 (4th Cir. 1996). All of these rules are designed, in part, to protect the jury's inviolable power to nullify and to avoid the reversible error always committed when "the wrong entity judge[s] the defendant guilty." Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578 (1986). Second, the roots of nullification also run deep into the (p.7)Double Jeopardy Clause. Even where the jury's verdict of not guilty seems indefensible, that clause prevents the State from pursuing even the limited remedy of a new trial. This rule, by design, gives juries the power to "err upon the side of mercy" by entering "an unassailable but unreasonable verdict of not guilty." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317 n.10 (1979). [red]The only Supreme Court Justice ever impeached, Samuel Chase, was charged with denying the right of jurors to judge the law. His defense argued, among other things, that: "As little can this respondent be justly charged with having, by any conduct of his, endeavored to 'wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact involved in the verdict which they were required to give.' He denies that he did at any time declare that the aforesaid counsel should not at any time address the jury, or did in any manner hinder them from addressing the jury on the law as well as on the facts arising in the case. It was expressly stated, in the copy of his opinion delivered as above set forth to William Lewis, that the jury had a right to determine the law as well as the fact: and the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas were expressly informed, before they declared their resolution to abandon the defence, that they were at liberty to argue the law to the jury." United States v. Fries, 9 F.Cas. 924, 934 (D. Pennsylvania, 1800).[/red] Some quotes by Founding Fathers: I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789 John Adams, who became the second U.S. President, in 1771 said of the juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Theophilus Parsons, "... a leading supporter of the Constitution of the United States in the convention of 1788 by which Massachusetts ratified the Constitution, (who was appointed by President Adams in 1801 to the post of Attorney General of the United States, but declined that office and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts in 1806) said: "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p.267. Quoted in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895), Dissenting Opinion: Gray, Shiras, JJ., 144. I really like this one: "It's easy for the public to ignore an unjust law, if the law operates behind closed doors and out of sight. But when jurors have to use a law to send a man to prison, they are forced to think long and hard about the justice of the law. And when the public reads newspaper accounts of criminal trials and convictions, they too may think about whether the convictions are just. As a result, jurors and spectators alike may bring to public debate more informed interest in improving the criminal law. Any law which makes many people uncomfortable is likely to attract the attention of the legislature. The laws on narcotics and abortion come to mind --and there must be others. The public adversary trial thus provides an important mechanism for keeping the substantive criminal law in tune with contemporary community values." D.C. Circuit Court Judge D. Bazelon, "The Adversary Process--Who Needs It?" 12th Annual James Madison Lecture, New York University School of Law (April, 1971), reprinted in 117 Cong. Rec. 5852, 5855 (daily ed. April 29, 1971). Thanks Sweep. The Chase impeachment is what I was looking for. Also remember there are rules preventing a Judge from ordering a finding of guilty and rules barring judges reversing and appellate courts from reviewing criminal jury aquitals. Logic favors these doctrines as supporting the juries right to go beyond mere deciders of fact. |
| Sweep took care of business here so my chiming in is only to back up what he said. Jury Nullification is an integral part of our system of checks and balances. The fact that jurors are so intimidated now by the courts, and generally ignorant of nullification's efficacy in preserving our rights, is part of the reason our legal system is in shambles. |
|
[red] Jury Nullification is an integral part of our system of checks and balances. The fact that jurors are so intimidated now by the courts, and generally ignorant of nullification's efficacy in preserving our rights, is part of the reason our legal system is in shambles. I understand jury nullification, but doesn't the ultimate decision lie in the hands of the judge? I've always understood that the judge may overrule(?) a jury's verdict if he believes it is in the best interest of justice to do so. Or does this vary from state to state and so forth? |
|
Quoted: I understand jury nullification, but doesn't the ultimate decision lie in the hands of the judge? I've always understood that the judge may overrule(?) a jury's verdict if he believes it is in the best interest of justice to do so. Or does this vary from state to state and so forth? In some circumstances in civil cases, the judge has the power to overturn or modify a jury verdict. In criminal cases, the judge only has the authority to take a case from the jury if the action favors the defendant. IOW, he can dismiss a case after the gov't rests, or can direct a verdict of NG, or can enter of judgment of NG following a guilty verdict; however, he cannot unilaterally determine a defendant to be guilty. |
| I don't remember where, but I heard of a woman that got kicked off of a jury for refusing to deliberate because her mind was made up and she didn't think it was her job to let the rest of them cow her into their views. It seems like the judges can do almost anything they want nowadays with little/no fear of consequences. |
|
I understand jury nullification, but doesn't the ultimate decision lie in the hands of the judge? I've always understood that the judge may overrule(?) a jury's verdict if he believes it is in the best interest of justice to do so. Or does this vary from state to state and so forth? Judges cannot overrule a not guilty verdict, but they can overturn a guilty verdict. Only guilty verdicts are appealed, right! If they could that would destroy the whole idea of trial by jury, which is to put your fate into the hands of we the people rather than let a possible tyranical government decide. I'm talking criminal trials, not civil. I'm glad so many are taking an interest in nullification, as the government's trashing of nullification rights is one of my pet peeves. I used to push nullification on this board a couple of years ago but there was little interest then. |
|
Quoted: I don't remember where, but I heard of a woman that got kicked off of a jury for refusing to deliberate because her mind was made up and she didn't think it was her job to let the rest of them cow her into their views. It seems like the judges can do almost anything they want nowadays with little/no fear of consequences. Yes, and judges have become rather brazen in the last twenty years. It's been one of my biggest problems with our legal system lately. Aimless, I usually h old what you say in high regard, but I must say I'm rather disappointed in you on this one [:(] |
|
Quoted: I served jury duty today and luckily I didn't even get called to be questioned by attorneys or the judge. However, I was thinking about asking the lawyer/judge what this is since I've heard that they don't like jurors who know about it, hence I would be excused. So I have a couple of questions. One, what is it really? I have an idea but I'm not 100% sure. Two, are there any legal ramifications for asking about it? I don't want to hear that "it's your duty to serve don't weasel out of it" bullshit. I mean can the judge hold me in contempt or does he have no right to? A_G, you've certainly gotten some good info from others so I'll add a useful link and recommend a book. Realize that your right to nullify a bad law is extremely useful in protecting the right to keep and bear arms. And remember that when a judge asks you to promise to follow his/her instructions on the law, the judge is actually tricking you into giving up your nullification rights. Yes, you can get into trouble if you agree to promise and then talk about the law while deliberating. Read through everything on the FIJA link on the 1st page for more on this. For an excellent primer on jury nullification, visit [url]www.caught.net/juror.htm[/url]. This link contains two parts; the primer is titled "Jurors' Handbook", and the second part, "Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right" is also interesting reading. I recommend you pick up a copy of "Jury Nullification - The Evolution of a Doctrine" by Clay S. Conrad (Amazon) if you are interested in learning much more about your nullification rights. The link above should answer your first question. Regarding your second, just asking about nullification should be no problem at all. It's breaking your promise to give up your rights that will cause trouble, but only if you can't keep your mouth shut at the appropriate time (while deliberating). And as you mention, just asking about nullification will alert the prosecution's lawyer that you are aware of your rights so you will more than likely be excused! |
|
Quoted: A.G - [red]Being forced to do something by the government doesn't make it right, let us understand that.[/red] With that statement are you tring to say that makes it wrong by default, then? If so: Can... [brown][size=3]worms[/brown][/size=3]... [red][size=5]big[/red][/size=5]... The rest of your posts are summed up to me rather early on - [red]My employer doesn't pay for jury duty, and having to drive to downtown LA to serve is a massive pain in the ass on top of losing wages.[/red] Ask not what I can do for my country, rather what can my country do for me, eh? You are afforded certain protections by the systems this country has in place. Seeing as you enjoy the fruits of this system (wages from an employer,) it should only stand to reason that the system can allow for a few demands of you. And yes, the jury system is directly in control of certain key aspects of your just rewards, such as punishing companies that violate the minimum wage laws among [b]numerous[/b] others. However, sloth and self-gratification have long been both the vices and the inventive progenitors of our society (both being seen as neccessities,) so I am sure you'll be able to "hang" a man by cell phone in the somewhat near future. Yay for us! Oh please. I do plenty for this country, far more than some asshole welfare recipient who does jury duty while I curse it. I refuse to buy into this "it's your duty" bullshit. Just like I said, what's to stop the nice government from decrying whatever it want's as a "civic duty"? If my employer would pay for jury duty, I wouldn't mind as much. Even better would be the assholes being more accommodating and understanding, and them paying me for my days work that I'd lose serving instead of my employer being punished and made to. The way they employ terror tactics to force people into it and their callus treatment of people really leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. It's people like you who flock like sheep around forced government servitude. Would you also jump for joy if you were forced to fight in a war that the politicians didn't allow to be won, ala Vietnam? In any case, I have made up my mind about this. I will always curse forced service, especially the way jury duty is done. To all the others, thank you for the detailed information. I wasn't expecting such in-depth posts but thank you for them. Some great stuff to check into and let people know about. Thanks again! Edited to fix quote. |