Better Than Wolves Forum

I really can't fucking believe this. I just got a summons for jury duty.

<face palm>

All right, time to try and figure out how to express total contempt for the justice system without being thrown in the slammer for actual contempt :)

Religious biases, real or fabricated, if expressed properly can get you out of it without unfair judgement. ;-)

I think you'd probably make a good juror... :)

Sarudak wrote:I think you'd probably make a good juror... :)

I'm good at a lot of things I want absolutely nothing to do with :)

I'm trying to think of a way to phrase that I don't believe in anything at all beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps a philosophical tirade on not being able to definitively establish the existence of the court house ;)

You can't be a juror, you're accustomed to being Judge, Jury, AND Executioner.

Hmm... It's too bad permaban isn't really a legal action you can advise...

Time for Better than the Justice System 1.0?

on the ground that the alien race that created this world didn't decree the laws enforced by this court I object to jury duty.

you may sound a little crazy but should work lol XD

Splee999 wrote:Hmm... It's too bad permaban isn't really a legal action you can advise...

Yes it is. Think about it.

You can always bring up jury nullification, especially for drug cases. Judges and prosecutors hate that.

BigShinyToys wrote:

on the ground that the alien race that created this world didn't decree the laws enforced by this court I object to jury duty.

you may sound a little crazy but should work lol XD

oh wait, that makes you sound crazy?
it makes perfect sense to me.......

A possible way out (if you're an astrophysicist or ... a game developer) --

Hey! I've got jury duty too!

I, on the other hand, want to be picked as a juror and go through the whole process. I think it sounds interesting. Good luck getting out of it though (or not getting picked?).

Folrig wrote: I, on the other hand, want to be picked as a juror and go through the whole process. I think it sounds interesting. Good luck getting out of it though (or not getting picked?).

See...that mystifies me. Interesting or no, are you prepared to live with the consequences to someone else's life if you fuck up?

At the root of it, I personally object to judging another person in this manner. My main objection to it is that I could not go through with this without winding up feeling like a total hypocrite, and likely doubting myself for the rest of my life.

Interesting really doesn't factor into it. I acknowledge the necessity of a criminal system in a modern society, but I do not want any part of participating in it.

Man, I can think of a hundred scenarios that could come out of this which just have no good result. What if, for example, I am put in the position of basically being asked to enforce a law which I don't personally believe in (and there are plenty of those), but which a person is obviously "guilty" of? I do not believe I could do anything but call them not guilty based on my own conscience, and I do not even know what kind of shit-storm that would cause.

FlowerChild wrote: Man, I can think of a hundred scenarios that could come out of this which just have no good result. What if, for example, I am put in the position of basically being asked to enforce a law which I don't personally believe in (and there are plenty of those), but which a person is obviously "guilty" of? I do not believe I could do anything but call them not guilty based on my own conscience, and I do not even know what kind of shit-storm that would cause.

Isn't that what the aforementioned jury nullification rule is for?

Sarudak wrote:Isn't that what the aforementioned jury nullification rule is for?

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily in the U.S. Local rules may or may not apply.

From my experience in BC, the courts tend to call about 2 to 3 times as many jurors as they'll actually need for the trial. One friend of mine has been called 4 times and hasn't actually sat on a jury. And it wasn't even because he was unsuitable, they filled the jury up with candidates before he even got called into the room.

So the slightly good news is, the summons doesn't necessarily mean you're going to have to actually do it. I don't see any reason why it would be different for you. Hope it works out.

You have an interesting point with the "what if your vote make the rest of an innocent person's life a nightmare". That thought never occurred to me. And you're right : it's pretty scary.

Was once summoned for grand jury (they handle narc cases where I live) was not selected to sit though since they summon more than they need. So I doged a bullet there.

Actually, I just did a little research on jury nullification and it turns out it does apply, and is frowned upon by judges and prosecutors, in my jurisdiction.

It looks like my best course of action is to simply state very honestly that I am a prime candidate for it, as I will likely vote based on my own conscience, and not the law, during any potential interview. They can then make up their own minds as to whether I am suitable or not. It appears it is my right to do exactly that, so I'm not violating any rules, just validly letting them know that I am undesirable for such a role.

Thanks for pointing that out guys. Much obliged.

FlowerChild wrote:See...that mystifies me. Interesting or no, are you prepared to live with the consequences to someone else's life if you fuck up?

At the root of it, I personally object to judging another person in this manner. My main objection to it is that I could not go through with this without winding up feeling like a total hypocrite, and likely doubting myself for the rest of my life.

This bit right here? This counts as honest religious/moral objection. Failing that, just claim knowledge of the case and/or participants. The way it works here is you sit in a courtroom with a hell of a lot of other potential jurors. You get called up in blocks of 30-50 and sent to a room with some lawyers in. They'll ask people who know one of the participants/are biased for/against the case or object to the proceding to raise their hand. As long as they still have enough to choose a jury from, they send you home.

I really wouldn't sweat it too much.

Sir William Blackstone wrote:It is better for ten guilty people to remain free than for one innocent to be imprisoned.

Trial by jury isn't really about the law, it's about each person's interpretation of the law and their own personal morals. If someone disobeys a law they disagree with, they get arrested and tried as a criminal. If they convince enough people that the law is terrible, then it isn't a crime, it's civil disobedience. The critical step is convincing people. Thieves generally can't convince people that laws against stealing are unjust. Law is just the record of previous generations' moral code. That includes our own generation, because like every generation, we tweak the code to fit our own standards. Laws are just the most popular opinion of the day.

FC glad you came up with a way to get out of it. I never have to worry about being called a juror my past makes me inelligable- yay me

New feature for BTW: HARDCORE JUSTICE.

Well for what it's worth I think you are very unlikley to get the types of cases you seem to be worrird about. Having done jury duty 3 times I ended up sitting on 4 cases and being in the pool for another 5 (where I was either challanged or not randomly selected). In all 9 instances the charges were very black and white (two were assault, for example). The decision was not, of course, you have to weigh up the evidence (that's pretty much the point!) but I would suspect you would be very unlikley to be weighing up evidence for a dubious law.