Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It disturbs me that a random Internet idiot can be on a jury
- Thread starter tzhu07
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does this mean that the OP has been selected for jury duty?
Even if you offer to show proof that you are an idiot, that may not be enough to dismiss you from your duty
Does this mean that the OP has been selected for jury duty?
Even if you offer to show proof that you are an idiot, that may not be enough to dismiss you from your duty
As the saying goes-"Remember that you are being tried by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
Granted that's not always the case. My late grandmother got called up several years back, and gladly went because-in her words-"what else do I have to do." She ended up serving out a full 6 months on a grand jury. I've known plenty of other retired people who were only too happy to serve and took a similar view as my grandmother.
Not really sure what the issue is, - or the issues are - here.
Is it a juror who is commenting on the fact that s/he is currently serving on a jury on YouTube, when, obviously, it is inappropriate to comment on such a matter while serving in such a role?
Are the concerns with the whole idea of 'a jury of one's peers'?
Or, is it with the fact that many individuals nowadays, seem unable to distinguish between the public and the private sphere, and the sort of behaviour and conduct that it is appropriate to expect from each?
Is it a juror who is commenting on the fact that s/he is currently serving on a jury on YouTube, when, obviously, it is inappropriate to comment on such a matter while serving in such a role?
Are the concerns with the whole idea of 'a jury of one's peers'?
Or, is it with the fact that many individuals nowadays, seem unable to distinguish between the public and the private sphere, and the sort of behaviour and conduct that it is appropriate to expect from each?
I don't think stating the fact that one is serving jury duty is verboten.
Commenting on the specific case on which one is serving probably is(it's usually not a good idea, especially if it's a high profile case), and especially one should not give details of the case to which the jury is privy.
It's posts like this that make me very glad that we don't have jury trails.
Justice is to important to be left up to amateurs.
Justice is to important to be left up to amateurs.
I would assume that the judge would have - perhaps - instructed the jury on what is, and what is not, behaviour that is considered appropriate while discharging their civic duty as jury members.
While mentioning that one is serving on a jury should not - in itself - be a cause for concern, - discussing a case (online or anywhere else in public) while it is on, would very much be seen as not only inappropriate behaviour, but would also, I suspect, be viewed as being in contempt of court.
This is where one of the perennial problems of the online age - the inability to distinguish between the public and the private space - seems to be an issue, once again.
As the saying goes-"Remember that you are being tried by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
Granted that's not always the case. My late grandmother got called up several years back, and gladly went because-in her words-"what else do I have to do." She ended up serving out a full 6 months on a grand jury. I've known plenty of other retired people who were only too happy to serve and took a similar view as my grandmother.
I work for the State of California, and they're very accommodating to jury duty. You don't have to be retired, you just have to work for somebody who is prepared to deal with the interruption.
And I'm happy to serve.
As the saying goes-"Remember that you are being tried by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
Granted that's not always the case. My late grandmother got called up several years back, and gladly went because-in her words-"what else do I have to do." She ended up serving out a full 6 months on a grand jury. I've known plenty of other retired people who were only too happy to serve and took a similar view as my grandmother.
Obviously, I have heard this 'joke' before now; glib, superficially clever, and - like so much else - completely missing the point because encouraging this attitude to take root means that juries, do, indeed, cease to be representative of society at large, and their membership becomes confined to those who either cannot, or choose not to, seek to evade serving.
Personally, I view serving on a jury as a privilege and honour, as one of the rights and responsibilities of those who see citizenship as something positive, and see serving on a jury as playing an active role as a citizen and taking responsibility for a small part of helping to foster the old ideal of 'the common good'.
Sometimes, though, leaving it solely to the professionals can lead to miscarriages of justice, too. At its best, a good jury can contribute a lot - not least a sense of civic ownership of the legal system - to a trial.
Last edited:
Truth be told, I'm in full agreement that a jury trial is a civic duty and I would be happy to serve on one.
In actuality, I think my selection in any sort of criminal trial would be very unlikely. I am a chemist by training and profession, and have a substantial amount of real-world experience with the sort of scientific data that is often used in a criminal trial. I'm intimately familiar with instrumental techniques like GC-MS, IR, and NMR as well as the inherent uncertainty in those. For that reason, my standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is-I would say-much higher than the public at large when that sort of data comes into play. I'm not saying that as an intentional ploy to get out of jury-just the actuality of what I know about this sort of stuff.
I also shoot guns recreationally and reload ammunition-again, something that in a criminal case would probably flag me(by either the prosecution or defense) as being disqualified if the case in any way involved a firearm.
While I don't want to get into one of those rabid and perfervid 'gun' thread arguments, given the widespread legal and cultural acceptance of gun ownership and use in the USA, why should this preclude your selection as a jury member?
I would love to be on a jury. Alas, I've only ever been called to the courthouse twice in my life, and never even made it into a pool for selection either time.
I'm guessing you're young, live in a low population area or both. I've received 30-40 jury over the years. Once I was summoned to 2 courthouses (municipal and county) in the same week.
I've only had a Federal summon once for the Arthur Anderson trial (Enron scandal).Most of the time the defendant takes the plea bargain after the cops walk them pass the 100's of prospective juror. Usually, I don't approve of such dirty tactics, but since it save taxpayer's money. It's all good.
While the US does have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, a relatively small minority of those owners actually have an in-depth knowledge of things like ballistic, caliber differences, and bullet profiles.
Depending on how exactly the case is going, either the defense or prosecution might not like the fact that they can't influence one member of the jury with phrases like "Cop killer hollowpoint bullets"(a complete falsehood that the media like to perpetuate, when in actuality they are less likely to penetrate ballistic vests) or a "So powerful the police won't carry it 357 Magnum"(again, a falsehood, as the police quit carrying 357 Magnums in favor of high capacity 9mm pistols). There was a fairly high profile case a few years back where a man was hiking in the woods and carrying a 10mm Glock loaded with hollowpoint primarily for defense against wildlife(an excellent choice for that purpose). He ended up having a confrontation with a man who was charging him with a bladed weapon(within 21 feet with a bladed weapon=lethal distance as per court cases) and shot the man to stop him. The jury found him guilty because they felt he was carrying "too much firepower."
So, again, having a person with a higher-than-average knowledge of ballistics on a jury where a shooting is involved can be viewed by either side as a disadvantage because they are less likely to be swayed by exaggerated language from the defense or prosecution.
Last edited:
This is an excellent post. The phrase "civic ownership of the legal system" is going to stick with me, too.
There is no reason to be disturbed.
In the US you have the choice between a jury or a judge.
----------
I recommend you read up on the superiority of the adversial law system.
Also, as mentioned, if you are unhappy about the jury system, you can always chose a trial without jury. One of the differences is just that in the adversial system you have checks and balances and a choice, while in the inquisitorial system you are a sitting duck at the regimes mercy.
In the US you have the choice between a jury or a judge.
----------
Yes, let's leave it up to a tenured, politicaly motivated state clerk
I recommend you read up on the superiority of the adversial law system.
Also, as mentioned, if you are unhappy about the jury system, you can always chose a trial without jury. One of the differences is just that in the adversial system you have checks and balances and a choice, while in the inquisitorial system you are a sitting duck at the regimes mercy.
There is no reason to be disturbed.
In the US you have the choice between a jury or a judge.
----------
Yes, let's leave it up to a tenured, politicaly motivated state clerk
I recommend you read up on the superiority of the adversial law system.
Also, as mentioned, if you are unhappy about the jury system, you can always chose a trial without jury. One of the differences is just that in the adversial system you have checks and balances and a choice, while in the inquisitorial system you are a sitting duck at the regimes mercy.
Actually, I would argue that both have plusses and weaknesses/minuses.
A state bureaucratic system can be an excellent system, not subject to popular will, or with jurors running the risk of facing intimidation or threats from armed groups, (or criminal gangs), seeking to undermine the state, or rule of law in certain cities or regions: There were periods of time in the Irish republic, for example, when jury trials were abolished for those charged with terrorist offences as jurors ran the risk of being threatened.
However, a bureaucratic system, while remote, - and, at its best - independent, informed and disinterested - can also suffer from the systemic biases and prejudices and bureaucratic inertia that a state bureaucracy anywhere may become prone to, which means that inbuilt biases can exert excessive influence over outcomes, and thus, it can come to be seen as an unjust and unfair arm of the state, one which seeks to protect the powerful while punishing the weak.
There is no reason to be disturbed.
In the US you have the choice between a jury or a judge.
----------
Yes, let's leave it up to a tenured, politicaly motivated state clerk
I recommend you read up on the superiority of the adversial law system.
Also, as mentioned, if you are unhappy about the jury system, you can always chose a trial without jury. One of the differences is just that in the adversial system you have checks and balances and a choice, while in the inquisitorial system you are a sitting duck at the regimes mercy.
That is a fair point.
But because you don't trust your own government, well that's up to you.
Given your countries past I do understand.
But we in the Netherlands see all the "ALL WHITE JURY AGREED"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-white_jury
Just look at the **** storm after the "OJ Trial" when it didn't go the "White Way"
Now of course it's handled by the "Grand Jury" so your white police can shoot people of colour, and not even go to trial.
Last edited:
Truth be told, a very large percentage of the US population is gun nuts. It's absurd how people don't see the problem.
I don't want to turn this into a PRSI thread, but as collector, frequent shooter, occasional gunsmith(a skill that carries over from my training as a watchmaker) and reloader I probably fit most peoples' definition of "gun nut." As someone who hangs around gun shops a lot, I'd say that the vast majority of the gun owning public don't fit the definition of "gun nut."
It's a matter of perspective, though-most I realize that many folks consider any gun owner a "gun nut." I can assure they are not.
Truth be told, too, folks who are not "gun nuts" are probably a bigger danger than the "gun nuts."