Let's start with, I'm biased. Years ago, I was the recipient of an unjust verdict, and as a result, I spent time in prison for a crime I did not commit. It still colors my world, to this day. Not...
Let's start with, I'm biased. Years ago, I was the recipient of an unjust verdict, and as a result, I spent time in prison for a crime I did not commit. It still colors my world, to this day.
Not all cops are bad, not all cops lie under oath ... but neither do they deserve any kind of special "benefit of the doubt" weight fom jurors. Cops' testimony should be held to, roughly speaking, the same standards as any other human testifying under oath ... and anyone willing to lie or otherwise finagle their way onto a jury to apply, roughly, those standards, is fine by me.
I would add that, all apparent evidence and/or hype to the contrary, the current judicial system in place in the US is, effectively, a more sophisticated version of "trial by combat". The best "champion" wins ... actual Justice being, more or less, coincidental to the outcome.
Have to say, I absolutely love that metaphor. Especially since, just like in trial by combat, the more expensive weapons & armour your champion/s are afforded, the more likely they are to win too....
the current judicial system in place in the US is, effectively, a more sophisticated version of "trial by combat". The best "champion" wins ... actual Justice being, more or less, coincidental to the outcome.
Have to say, I absolutely love that metaphor. Especially since, just like in trial by combat, the more expensive weapons & armour your champion/s are afforded, the more likely they are to win too. And woe betides anyone who chooses to be their own champion, or has no money so needs to rely on the overburdened, underpaid one provided by the State. :/
Would you attempt to influence a jury based on your feelings about the criminal justice system? That's the question. For how much weight a police officer's testimony should carry, for whether the...
Would you attempt to influence a jury based on your feelings about the criminal justice system?
That's the question. For how much weight a police officer's testimony should carry, for whether the charges are appropriate, for whether the law is just.
Should you do whatever you can to get on a jury to influence the outcome of the trial? Personally I think yes, because I think it's my responsibility to render justice if selected for a jury. The lawyers are concerned with the law, but sometimes the laws are not just (simple possession, etc.) and sometimes the potential punishment is not just (three strikes laws).
I don't know that I'd go quite so far as lying if asked directly about a topic, but I would certainly not reveal my opinions on the matter before selection is complete. I've also only been in a potential pool once in my life and was dismissed when they found out I was an engineer lol. I guess my lack of feelings negates any arguments directed at provoking an emotional response.
Yeah I've given notice of jury duty 3 times in my life, and I'm 37 now. Twice I had to get out of it because I was enlisted. The third time I was empaneled once but not selected.
Yeah I've given notice of jury duty 3 times in my life, and I'm 37 now. Twice I had to get out of it because I was enlisted. The third time I was empaneled once but not selected.
During jury selection it's normal to be asked "would you be willing to find guilty if someone broke [this specific] law." As the article touches on, there is always wiggle room in how you...
During jury selection it's normal to be asked "would you be willing to find guilty if someone broke [this specific] law."
As the article touches on, there is always wiggle room in how you interpret these questions, but it's important to answer truthfully because lying to The Man is a crime.
Edit:
Also the Judge is going to apply incredible pressure to hold jurors to the oath they swore, which in California is "Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?"
Judges have incredible powers. Jury Nullification exists because if the Judge thinks you as a Juror lied under oath they can put you away.
Ethically, you’re allowed to lie to The Man. Sometimes you’re compelled to lie to The Man. But you need to understand the risks involved. You need to accept their power to punish you. Growing up...
Ethically, you’re allowed to lie to The Man. Sometimes you’re compelled to lie to The Man. But you need to understand the risks involved. You need to accept their power to punish you.
Growing up raised by absolute pacifists, I was told that dodging a draft was a valid option. My parents said they’d miss me while I hid in Canada for the rest of my life, but that they’d respect such a decision.
I’m not sure what I’d do given that situation. I might prefer to be a conscientious objector, but given that my objector opportunities may still directly support a war it may be better to leave the country. Either way, I’m trying to make my best ethical decision. But I acknowledge the risks involved.
I can agree to that statement, even following "the instructions of the court," until someone makes it clear that I'm instructed to convict. But then what? How does a judge compel me to convict? Do...
I can agree to that statement, even following "the instructions of the court," until someone makes it clear that I'm instructed to convict. But then what? How does a judge compel me to convict? Do I tell the defense, "I want to acquit your client but the judge ordered me to convict?" And if I can be ordered to convict someone, what's the point of bringing in a jury to begin with? Why doesn't the judge just preside over the whole deal and decide for themself whether the defendant is guilty or not?
I don't think anyone's going to put me away for anything. And again, I can be totally agreeable to the jury instructions. I've been to a jury selection once, and the questions I say through (in Virginia) were a lot like these from Massachusetts (warning: direct PDF link from here) this:
if the prosecution does not prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant is not guilty on that charge?
That just says I have to find not guilty if prosecution doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Like I said in another comment, I wouldn't lie outright if asked directly about a topic, but nothing in that whole brief I linked says anything about jury nullification or needing to convict. I also would "pass" the question about police testimony. I wouldn't blindly believe or reject - it has the same weight as any other witness testimony.
I think I would spoil the process if asked directly about something that would require me to disclose my view on jury nullification, though. I'd be very vocal about the topic in front of the other jurors as well, ensuring that everyone in the potential pool is aware of that possible outcome.
All this isn't to say I'd never convict, but again as mentioned if the law or punishment is unjust then it's my civic duty to be the voice of justice.
I don't understand. If the case was overturned because the conviction relied on statements made during deliberation, why is it "possible that other jurors may be similarly prosecuted in the...
I don't understand. If the case was overturned because the conviction relied on statements made during deliberation, why is it "possible that other jurors may be similarly prosecuted in the future?"
The only time to argue the case with the other jurors is during deliberation. If speech is protected during that time then again I don't see how anyone gets prosecuted in the future.
They can prosecute you for anything. If a cop beats you to a bloody pulp, then charges you with resisting, they can prosecute you with resisting even though there was no other cause to arrest you....
They can prosecute you for anything.
If a cop beats you to a bloody pulp, then charges you with resisting, they can prosecute you with resisting even though there was no other cause to arrest you.
If you pay for decent representation, the charge will likely be tossed, but you still end up in jail and with an arrest charge on your record.
I think it is both ethical and a moral good to obfuscate or even lie to get on a jury if you understand the legal system and wish to participate in ensuring it is effective, efficient, and just. I...
I think it is both ethical and a moral good to obfuscate or even lie to get on a jury if you understand the legal system and wish to participate in ensuring it is effective, efficient, and just. I wish I had more to contribute, but it's pretty straightforward - you're making the system better by doing so and there are bad actors who are effectively doing the opposite (claiming no bias, when they are racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.) so you are providing a counterbalance.
Yeah that's it exactly. I can't fix police injustices, I can't repeal laws, I can't fire a corrupt DA, but what I can do is to use my voice and fix one case.
you are providing a counterbalance
Yeah that's it exactly. I can't fix police injustices, I can't repeal laws, I can't fire a corrupt DA, but what I can do is to use my voice and fix one case.
Let's start with, I'm biased. Years ago, I was the recipient of an unjust verdict, and as a result, I spent time in prison for a crime I did not commit. It still colors my world, to this day.
Not all cops are bad, not all cops lie under oath ... but neither do they deserve any kind of special "benefit of the doubt" weight fom jurors. Cops' testimony should be held to, roughly speaking, the same standards as any other human testifying under oath ... and anyone willing to lie or otherwise finagle their way onto a jury to apply, roughly, those standards, is fine by me.
I would add that, all apparent evidence and/or hype to the contrary, the current judicial system in place in the US is, effectively, a more sophisticated version of "trial by combat". The best "champion" wins ... actual Justice being, more or less, coincidental to the outcome.
Have to say, I absolutely love that metaphor. Especially since, just like in trial by combat, the more expensive weapons & armour your champion/s are afforded, the more likely they are to win too. And woe betides anyone who chooses to be their own champion, or has no money so needs to rely on the overburdened, underpaid one provided by the State. :/
I'm terribly sorry for what happened to you. I hope you're well now.
Everyone should know about Jury Nullification. Jurors can vote to acquit even if the person is guilty.
Would you attempt to influence a jury based on your feelings about the criminal justice system?
That's the question. For how much weight a police officer's testimony should carry, for whether the charges are appropriate, for whether the law is just.
Should you do whatever you can to get on a jury to influence the outcome of the trial? Personally I think yes, because I think it's my responsibility to render justice if selected for a jury. The lawyers are concerned with the law, but sometimes the laws are not just (simple possession, etc.) and sometimes the potential punishment is not just (three strikes laws).
I don't know that I'd go quite so far as lying if asked directly about a topic, but I would certainly not reveal my opinions on the matter before selection is complete. I've also only been in a potential pool once in my life and was dismissed when they found out I was an engineer lol. I guess my lack of feelings negates any arguments directed at provoking an emotional response.
Yeah I've given notice of jury duty 3 times in my life, and I'm 37 now. Twice I had to get out of it because I was enlisted. The third time I was empaneled once but not selected.
During jury selection it's normal to be asked "would you be willing to find guilty if someone broke [this specific] law."
As the article touches on, there is always wiggle room in how you interpret these questions, but it's important to answer truthfully because lying to The Man is a crime.
Edit:
Also the Judge is going to apply incredible pressure to hold jurors to the oath they swore, which in California is "Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?"
Judges have incredible powers. Jury Nullification exists because if the Judge thinks you as a Juror lied under oath they can put you away.
Ethically, you’re allowed to lie to The Man. Sometimes you’re compelled to lie to The Man. But you need to understand the risks involved. You need to accept their power to punish you.
Growing up raised by absolute pacifists, I was told that dodging a draft was a valid option. My parents said they’d miss me while I hid in Canada for the rest of my life, but that they’d respect such a decision.
I’m not sure what I’d do given that situation. I might prefer to be a conscientious objector, but given that my objector opportunities may still directly support a war it may be better to leave the country. Either way, I’m trying to make my best ethical decision. But I acknowledge the risks involved.
I can agree to that statement, even following "the instructions of the court," until someone makes it clear that I'm instructed to convict. But then what? How does a judge compel me to convict? Do I tell the defense, "I want to acquit your client but the judge ordered me to convict?" And if I can be ordered to convict someone, what's the point of bringing in a jury to begin with? Why doesn't the judge just preside over the whole deal and decide for themself whether the defendant is guilty or not?
I don't think anyone's going to put me away for anything. And again, I can be totally agreeable to the jury instructions. I've been to a jury selection once, and the questions I say through (in Virginia) were a lot like these from Massachusetts (warning: direct PDF link from here) this:
That just says I have to find not guilty if prosecution doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Like I said in another comment, I wouldn't lie outright if asked directly about a topic, but nothing in that whole brief I linked says anything about jury nullification or needing to convict. I also would "pass" the question about police testimony. I wouldn't blindly believe or reject - it has the same weight as any other witness testimony.
I think I would spoil the process if asked directly about something that would require me to disclose my view on jury nullification, though. I'd be very vocal about the topic in front of the other jurors as well, ensuring that everyone in the potential pool is aware of that possible outcome.
All this isn't to say I'd never convict, but again as mentioned if the law or punishment is unjust then it's my civic duty to be the voice of justice.
You might enjoy reading the case of Laura Kriho
I don't understand. If the case was overturned because the conviction relied on statements made during deliberation, why is it "possible that other jurors may be similarly prosecuted in the future?"
The only time to argue the case with the other jurors is during deliberation. If speech is protected during that time then again I don't see how anyone gets prosecuted in the future.
They can prosecute you for anything.
If a cop beats you to a bloody pulp, then charges you with resisting, they can prosecute you with resisting even though there was no other cause to arrest you.
If you pay for decent representation, the charge will likely be tossed, but you still end up in jail and with an arrest charge on your record.
I think it is both ethical and a moral good to obfuscate or even lie to get on a jury if you understand the legal system and wish to participate in ensuring it is effective, efficient, and just. I wish I had more to contribute, but it's pretty straightforward - you're making the system better by doing so and there are bad actors who are effectively doing the opposite (claiming no bias, when they are racist, sexist, bigoted, etc.) so you are providing a counterbalance.
Yeah that's it exactly. I can't fix police injustices, I can't repeal laws, I can't fire a corrupt DA, but what I can do is to use my voice and fix one case.