Jury Duty is slavery!

Post Reply New Topic

I was a graduate student of mathematics and worked as an applied mathematician for many years. I am smarter than 95 percent of my countrymen. One manifestation of my Intelligence is that I do not buy into your socialist-fascist-collectivist crapdoodle. I believe in individual rights and justice, not swooning on the bosom of Society and becoming one of the Sheep.

ruveyn

There were some rather clever intellectual types who organized the complicated machinery of the Holocaust. If that's your standard.

Is jury service slavery? Well I've read here about how it is coerced, how there is no choice, that there are sanctions if you refuse etc, but does that constitute slavery? I guess it depends on your definition of slavery. So I looked up the precis definition, according to the OED:

slavery - a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _gb0780460

So whether you choose to do it is irrelevant. In my home country (UK) jurors are paid their normal wages via their employer plus expenses and they are very much appreciated for what they do. Therefore no it isn't slavery.

Where I live at the moment (Sweden) there is no such thing as trial by jury. Or so I've been told.

The whole point of juries is to give authority to citizens so that it is not only up to judges. A professional juror would be the same as a judge...

The whole point of juries is to give authority to citizens so that it is not only up to judges. A professional juror would be the same as a judge...[/quote]

that shows jury service is important. It does not justify making it compulsory. Why can't it be voluntary? Being a cop, fireman or solider (also important) are voluntary.

ruveyn

Because of those three professions only one has a voluntary component: firemen. Police officers, members of the armed forces (including "weekend warriors") and urban firefighters are all paid a living wage to perform their duties. Most of them do it as their full-time occupation.

The only viable analog is that of the volunteer fire department that exists in rural municipalities that have insufficient need for a full-time firefighting service. And even then, the volunteers require training, qualification and equipment, making them an closed organization.

Participation in the police, the fire department and now the military in the U.S. is VOLUNTARY. No draft! No forcing! Comprendo? So why not jury service?

The training for jury service consists of learning to read, to write and to reckon along with a modicum of logic which is also learned. The fact that jury service does not require specialized training has nothing to do with whether is should be compulsory or not. The fact that any citizen has the where with all to be a juror is all the more reason that it should be voluntary and not compelled.

The notion that a U.S. citizen can be compelled to march his ass to a courthouse on a specified date at a specified time like he was some kind of serf, is a disgrace. People own their own time. They are not any one's bondsmen.

ruveyn

There is this:

the current system means that it is POSSIBLE for a trial lawyer to be faced with a jury that includes a maverick and not JUST media sheep. Not EASY or COMMON, but POSSIBLE.

If you had volunteer or professional jurors, you would get the kind of people who want to be jurors. Please, not at my trial!

Do you want someone who resents the imposition on his time and may well blame the defendant for being on trial to hear your case?

ruveyn

To answer ruveyn's question, I honestly don't think there would even be enough volunteers in the first place. I have yet to meet a person who actually wanted to go to jury duty. There's just not a lot of incentive. At least with fireman and police officers there comes honor and a brotherhood. One is proud to be a fireman or a police officer. They give out medals and everything. Jurors? Meh.

Part of the idea of juries being at random is for the juror's protection and to prevent potential outside influence from affecting their verdicts.

Do you want someone who resents the imposition on his time and may well blame the defendant for being on trial to hear your case?

ruveyn[/quote]

Truth to tell, I do not want to be on trial.

Given who I am, given who a lot of people are, most jurors who do not assume I am guilty of being accused will have problems with me as a crazed loner weirdo. Other prejudices are minor.

My chances are enhanced if there is ONE person on the panel who actually listens to the evidence and thinks. This person will NOT be a volunteer or professional juror.

It never happens that way.

If anything, they'll resent the government and whatever.

Here's what happens, if you make jury duty non-compulsory, only people who want to be jurors will become jurors. But being a juror sucks, so it would be a lot more likely to get people that seek their own benefit to become jurors (ie: people that love bribes, people with mafia ties,...).

That may be true in Philadelphia. You shouldn't assume all states are the same. It is distinctly not true in Massachusetts, where it is extremely difficult to escape jury duty.


I have met no one who would refuse jury duty if they were paid competitive wages and could choose when they served. The objections I here are always either that it's work for free or close to it, or it's on an inconvenient date, such as when they're near a delivery date at their regular job.

What sucks about being a juror?

The attitude that all value in life and love and comprehension is compensated in monetary value is a treasured psychological element of bean counters, bankers, gangsters and prostitutes and when their lives are finished and at least some of them have attained their pile of gold I wonder if they ever realize how basically worthless that pile of gold really is.

When someone is asked to perform jury duty he or she is asked to participate in a crucial decision on a fellow citizen's life. Should some poor dumb schmuck have to spend a couple of years in the artificial hell of a prison because a brutal cop shook him down and discovered a few crumb of pot in the corner of his pocket? Should some woman be forced to return to a husband who beats her? Should a kid hit by a careless driver be properly compensated to get proper medical treatment? It's a privilege to be asked to present fair and decent judgment on these matters. That's how decent social interaction functions. Living in society has rewards and duties and both must be accepted for the good of all. It should not be necessary to be paid to act as a good citizen. What kind of grubby mind demands this?