Jury Duty

[Cynic-American]

You aren't gonna like this, but for once I agree with Cynic, and you are also wrong. I was permanently excused from jury duty some twenty years ago for agreeing that the jury system stinks, publicizing my position in the local newspaper

awesome!

 

[pegwinn]

You aren't gonna like this, but for once I agree with Cynic, and you are also wrong. Agree all you like. The same questions apply. Why? And how should it be fixed? And how was he wrong? At least in Texas he was spot on. You must be excused to legally get out of jury duty. By your own statement you were lawfully & permanently excused. I was permanently excused from jury duty some twenty years ago for agreeing that the jury system stinks, publicizing my position in the local newspaper,, (including that I would likely beleive the accused rather than either of the Attorneys or the Judge)and even taking the superior court to court as a result A week later I received a permanent excusal. I have never been sorry for it either.

Being permanently excused sounds like the court officially declared that it didn't trust you enough to allow you to have a say in the system you live under. JMO obviously, but I wouldn't brag on that.

 

[doniston]

Being permanently excused sounds like the court officially declared that it didn't trust you enough to allow you to have a say in the system you live under. JMO obviously, but I wouldn't brag on that.

No, they knew I would become a one person Jury, because I would not change my vote even if the other eleven disagreed with me. and I had created a threat against the Court, and the Judge.

I'm not bragging about it but I certainly am not ashamed. I have even helped others avoid the screwed up court system.

 

[jillian]

No, they knew I would become a one person Jury, because I would not change my vote even if the other eleven disagreed with me. and I had created a threat against the Court, and the Judge.

I'm not bragging about it but I certainly am not ashamed. I have even helped others avoid the screwed up court system.

Actually, that isn't why you'd be excluded. No one chooses a jury based upon that criteria. They might exclude someone from an individual case because of a particular topic on which one has strong opinions or a subject or parties with which a particular potential juror has had experience. But for someone to be permanently excluded, I'd think it would have to do more with instability and an inability or outright refusal to weigh facts in an unbiased manner. I don't think that is anything to be proud of at all. People who avail themselves of the court system rely upon jurors to assist them. By refusing to participate, you deny them recourse.

While the system is, certainly, less than perfect, I've yet to come across one I believe is better. You?

 

[doniston]

Actually, that isn't why you'd be excluded. No one chooses a jury based upon that criteria. They might exclude someone from an individual case because of a particular topic on which one has strong opinions or a subject or parties with which a particular potential juror has had experience. But for someone to be permanently excluded, I'd think it would have to do more with instability and an inability or outright refusal to weigh facts in an unbiased manner. I don't think that is anything to be proud of at all. People who avail themselves of the court system rely upon jurors to assist them. By refusing to participate, you deny them recourse.

While the system is, certainly, less than perfect, I've yet to come across one I believe is better. You?

Since you weren't there, and have no real idea what happened I won't even consider your opinion. You are just guessing as to what your own reasons might be. Not mine.

 

[jillian]

Since you weren't there, and have no real idea what happened I won't even consider your opinion. You are just guessing as to what your own reasons might be. Not mine.

Actually, I don't need to guess. I know the criteria for picking juries. And I know what *my* standard was for approving members of a panel.

So you can dismiss my opinion all you'd like. It really makes me no nevermind.

I do compliment you, once again, on a total failure to respond meaningfully in order to ignore those things for which you have no answer.

 

[pegwinn]

No, they knew I would become a one person Jury, because I would not change my vote even if the other eleven disagreed with me. I would not change my vote either provided I could defend it. and I had created a threat against the Court, and the Judge. I honestly doubt that. IF you were a credible threat, you would have been jailed. One of the bottom line tenets of Law Enforcement is that actual threats against the system are taken very seriously.
I'm not bragging about it but I certainly am not ashamed. I have even helped others avoid the screwed up court system. This is disturbing to me. I have no problem that you personally are biased against the system. But, if you subvert it you are placing others at risk. Have you done anything to change or modify it to address your concerns?

Actually, that isn't why you'd be excluded. No one chooses a jury based upon that criteria. They might exclude someone from an individual case because of a particular topic on which one has strong opinions or a subject or parties with which a particular potential juror has had experience. But for someone to be permanently excluded, I'd think it would have to do more with instability and an inability or outright refusal to weigh facts in an unbiased manner. I don't think that is anything to be proud of at all. People who avail themselves of the court system rely upon jurors to assist them. By refusing to participate, you deny them recourse. Better watch out. I said they didn't trust him. It sounds like we are in agreement.

While the system is, certainly, less than perfect, I've yet to come across one I believe is better. You?

Since you weren't there, and have no real idea what happened I won't even consider your opinion. That is precisely why you were specifically excluded I would wager. The statement is indicative of a mind that is so closed and insulated against change that you could not be trusted to be an honest juror. I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so I would assume you will dismiss my opinion out of hand as well? You are just guessing as to what your own reasons might be. Not mine.

The follow on question is still hanging out there. What exactly do you believe we should do to rectify the problem?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The follow on question is still hanging out there. What exactly do you believe we should do to rectify the problem?

Being a good Liberal he doesn't HAVE any plan or even thought on how to "fix" anything, just how to complain about what he doesn't like. The fall back position being "throw money" at the problem.

 

[jillian]

Being a good Liberal he doesn't HAVE any plan or even thought on how to "fix" anything, just how to complain about what he doesn't like. The fall back position being "throw money" at the problem.

Nothing "liberal" about his pov. So I'm not quite sure why the rantings of one individual who neither speaks for nor represents anyone else gets foists on a group.

Kind of a cheap shot, IMO.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing "liberal" about his pov. So I'm not quite sure why the rantings of one individual who neither speaks for nor represents anyone else gets foists on a group.

Kind of a cheap shot, IMO.

Well ya, we just need look at all the current elected liberals in congress and all the great PLANS they have, wait, they do not do they? In fact all the Liberals have done is bitch and moan about what isn't right, and in almost every case failed to provided a plan to correct what they claim is wrong.

But do go on about how it isn't the correct interpretation.

As for money, that is a historical fact, it is a Democratic party trait and is used by its liberal members now. Got a problem? Just throw money at it and forget about it.

 

[doniston]

The follow on question is still hanging out there. What exactly do you believe we should do to rectify the problem?

You have a very odd way of responding to quotes, however. in response.

1. there is more than one form of threat. Diud I say physical threat? NOPE!.. mine was a psychological treat against the system.--- Beleive as you will. It isn't the first and only time I have been compared to "Fools rush in" In this particular case, I had two prominent attorneys in the area compliment me on my courage, and saying they wouldn't have had the guts to do so. I also had several complementary replies in the following "Letters to the Editor" Column.

2. What question--- please clarify. What problem? are you asking me what I think is wrong and needs changing?

 

[doniston]

Being a good Liberal he doesn't HAVE any plan or even thought on how to "fix" anything, just how to complain about what he doesn't like. The fall back position being "throw money" at the problem.

a very strange and erroneous oppinion. the last thing I would do about anything is to throw money at the problem.

 

[pegwinn]

You have a very odd way of responding to quotes, however. in response. Not odd at all. By responding within the box you are assured I am speaking/responding directly to something you said. Responding out of the box is a more general statement.

1. there is more than one form of threat. Diud I say physical threat? NOPE!.. mine was a psychological treat against the system.--- Beleive as you will. It isn't the first and only time I have been compared to "Fools rush in" In this particular case, I had two prominent attorneys in the area compliment me on my courage, and saying they wouldn't have had the guts to do so. I also had several complementary replies in the following "Letters to the Editor" Column. Perhaps it is vernacular. When one poses a threat it is normally a physical one unless that simply isn't possible. For example. On this message board you could potentially pose a threat to someone physically. But due to the nature of the medium that isn't likely. Thus the linguistics would assume a different meaning here. You are more likely to pose an intellectual threat than a physical one. Since you were apparently physically present, and were physically known to the court, and you words led me to believe you posed a physical threat.

2. What question--- please clarify. What problem? are you asking me what I think is wrong and needs changing? Same question as posed to the other lad who openly stated that the system was corrupted and he would not participate.

Assume you are omnipotent for a day. How do you fix the problem. The other lad spoke in rash generalities about executing some and not letting folks go. Neither of which appear to address the problem IRT the jury system of assigning lawful guilt.

Tag, you're it.

 

[jillian]

Well ya, we just need look at all the current elected liberals in congress and all the great PLANS they have, wait, they do not do they? In fact all the Liberals have done is bitch and moan about what isn't right, and in almost every case failed to provided a plan to correct what they claim is wrong.

But do go on about how it isn't the correct interpretation.

As for money, that is a historical fact, it is a Democratic party trait and is used by its liberal members now. Got a problem? Just throw money at it and forget about it.

I don't think that was the issue at all. I simply pointed out that he has chosen not to participate in a system in which others rely on our judgments. I said that while imperfect, the jury system was certainly the best system I know of. I asked what system he had come across that was better.

I know you don't exactly think I'm a right-winger, so I'm wondering what the point was of taking an unnecessary shot since in this particular case, it seemed kind of bi-partisan, no?

Do tell what tossing money about it has to do with anything?

And we ARE still waiting, as Phil pointed out, for a response to my question as to what out there is a better way of doing things?

Or is he just into tearing things apart?

 

[Cynic-American]

want an example of why I lost faith in our system?
Read-
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article11331.html

 

[pegwinn]

want an example of why I lost faith in our system?
Read-
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article11331.html

Puhleese. 7 of those ten were tossed either initially or on appeal. Seems to me that the system was working.

IF you can get seventy percent of any non-military bureaucracy to function properly please report it here and to snopes.

 

[Cynic-American]

Puhleese. 7 of those ten were tossed either initially or on appeal. Seems to me that the system was working.

IF you can get seventy percent of any non-military bureaucracy to function properly please report it here and to snopes.

^another one who defends a system that allows people to sue for anything, no matter how stupid.

Well, newsflash: you pay for the settlements. Show me why these people deserve to have their cases heard.

 

[jillian]

^another one who defends a system that allows people to sue for anything, no matter how stupid.

Well, newsflash: you pay for the settlements. Show me why these people deserve to have their cases heard.

And at what point should they be prohibited from suing? Access to the courts is one of our rights as citizens. If they get their butts kicked, they get their butts kicked. I don't quite see the problem.

 

[Cynic-American]

And at what point should they be prohibited from suing? Access to the courts is one of our rights as citizens. If they get their butts kicked, they get their butts kicked. I don't quite see the problem.

the problem is they are wasting court time and taxpayer money so their cases can be heard.
They should be denied and warned if they try their shit again, they will be fined double the amount they seek and spend time in jail.
Seems to work in England as a friend told me.

 

[doniston]

How would I get out of jury duty?
I explained it above.

A few years ago I was called to sit on a jury but before I could, they asked about my profession and how I felt about drugs (the defendant was a Hispanic male caught with 1 gram of coke).
I said I believe in legalization of it.

I have an aquantance who never serves on a jury, when he is asked why he can't serve. he simply says his parole officer wouldn't let him.

Obviously the PO wouldn't object. But the Idea that he is on parole, gets him out of serving.