Letter of request for jury duty

[grandpa]

Following are my stated reasons for objecting to jury duty. (I was called to serve yet again.)

While I do understand the ideas behind the jury duty system, I do have some general stipulations I wish to be considered about my serving in it, and the system of law:

If the law which was allegedly violated is unjust, my conscience will not allow me to support a guilty verdict, even if the evidence proves the guilt.
For examples, I will not happily participate in eviction processes or in any financial matters that have next to nothing to do with me. Why? I feel the system we live under has long been a very general system of thievery, deceit, humiliation and murder, as evidenced by even a casual glimpse at history.
I will not offer a guilty verdict for marjuana convictions.
I also would not support any trial in which illegal immigration is at issue (though we are in Michigan, where immigration is not a key issue, my stipulation stands nonetheless).

Also, if the punishment is unjust and worse than the crime (as many of them certainly are), I will again be bothered. For example, I will not want to put someone in jail for doing something as trivial as stealing a candy bar. I also would not find much sense in "rehabilitating" a drunk driver by putting him/her in a work camp, and I object strongly to seatbelt laws.

None of the language here is the most scathing I could use, as I want my points to be seriously considered. I realize the choice is not entirely mine and that I am threatened with some type of punishment for non-particpation, regardless of the objections I provide, but if I do participate it will be grudgingly and, in most circumstances, with a vote for "innocent."

The only trial I might voluntarily particpate in is one involving a crime such as murder or rape, but even then with considerable hesitation.

Thank you,
Wade Wainio

[Gods_Mercenary]

As a jury member your job is to decide if the law was broken, not if it was just, that is for you and your other citizens to decide at the polls (if the other citizens grow a pair)

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As a jury member your job is to decide if the law was broken, not if it was just, that is for you and your other citizens to decide at the polls (if the other citizens grow a pair)

As a buman being with a brain and a conscience, my sense of obligation is to my sense of justice, not to laws.

Grandpa h.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As a jury member your job is to decide if the law was broken, not if it was just, that is for you and your other citizens to decide at the polls (if the other citizens grow a pair)

Google "Jury Nullification"

A jury DOES have the right to declare a law unjust, but you'll rarely see it.

[phoenix_fire]

I've never had that problem, seeing as how I have yet to feel strongly compelled to vote and I live five hours away from the county in which I am registered. But I rather imagine that no attorney in his/her right mind would pick me for a jury. I'm just too strange and unpredictable. And I would make a point of demonstrating that. Unless of course I wanted to be on the jury to make a point.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Google "Jury Nullification" A jury DOES have the right to declare a law unjust, but you'll rarely see it.

I suppose, but Like I said, your fellow jurors have to be likeminded and have the cahones to pull through, and Gramps is unlikely to find people who think that the only crimes they could decide on are rape and murder.

[Scribbler1]

I can agree with that. Hardly anyone knows about Jury Nullification to begin with, and I know some judges ILLEGALLY instruct juries not to even bring up the subject.

I also hear it's a good way to get OUT of jury duty by asking about it.

[Athena]

I would find it necessary to say that, because I witnessed so much legal corruption, including an attorney offering to make a court believe an innocent boy had committed a crime, to get my son off, instead of defending my son honestly, that I could not believe anything that happens in a court room. These, oh so smart, game playing attorneys, need to think what they are doing to the criminal justice system, when they play their games as though justice were a chess game.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Crap, all this time I've been pretending I'm Racist, sexist, agist, and every other ist in the world.

[gallo]

Quote by: grandpa If the law which was allegedly violated is unjust, my conscience will not allow me to support a guilty verdict, even if the evidence proves the guilt.

Then say so. In my experience jurors are given the opportunity to answer several open questions about their opinions. You will be dismissed for cause by the prosecution. I have twice been immediately dismissed after being called to the bench in conference with both attorneys - there was the assumption that my continued presence would taint the jury.

[Netopalis]

Quote by: grandpa For examples, I will not happily participate in eviction processes or in any financial matters that have next to nothing to do with me. Why? I feel the system we live under has long been a very general system of thievery, deceit, humiliation and murder, as evidenced by even a casual glimpse at history.

Well, in response to this, there are several things you need to consider: 1) Eviction is not the type of thing that goes before a jury regularly
2) Well, let's look at the flip side of this - people need basic housing for their families. Without a bank loan, most families could not afford to purchase a house. If eviction were never enforced, banks could not operate, and it would be the vast majority of honest bankers who pay, as well as the honest homeowners who would face steep loans to pay for the people who refuse to pay. Without eviction, the following transaction would become incredibly likely: Man wants to buy a house, takes out a 50,000 dollar loan. Purchases said house with said 50,000, but then refuses to make payments. Why should he be able to do this, and what would you propose to be a better system?
3) Part of the problem in the jury system today is that analytically thinking individuals (such as yourself) are rare in today's society, and thus on juries. They are swayed by a person who has a bit of panache and good courtroom manner more than they are with the evidence. The only remedy to this problem is for these individuals to accept jury duty when offered.

[gallo]

Quote by: Netopalis Well, in response to this, there are several things you need to consider: 1) Eviction is not the type of thing that goes before a jury regularly

True. I noticed that but didn't feel that it was relevant to my response.

2) Well, let's look at the flip side of this - people need basic housing for their families. Without a bank loan, most families could not afford to purchase a house. If eviction were never enforced, banks could not operate, and it would be the vast majority of honest bankers who pay, as well as the honest homeowners who would face steep loans to pay for the people who refuse to pay. Without eviction, the following transaction would become incredibly likely: Man wants to buy a house, takes out a 50,000 dollar loan. Purchases said house with said 50,000, but then refuses to make payments. Why should he be able to do this, and what would you propose to be a better system?

You don't seem to understand the question. Eviction is more about renters who fail to pay the rent than it is about home owners who default on mortgage payments. At any rate, I just don't see how any such cases could end up in a jury trial.

3) Part of the problem in the jury system today is that analytically thinking individuals (such as yourself) are rare in today's society, and thus on juries.

Nonsense. He isn't analytical. He is emotional.

They are swayed by a person who has a bit of panache and good courtroom manner more than they are with the evidence.

But he isn't even willing to examine the evidence. What does panache have to do with that?

The only remedy to this problem is for these individuals to accept jury duty when offered.

And take an oath that they have no intention of fulfilling? That's a bit amoral, don't you think?

P.S. How funny that you get a "letter of request." I get a subpoena. I can deny a request but failure to respond to a subpoena can result in a fine or jail time. But they don't inforce it.

[Netopalis]

Gallo - As far as renters vs. homeowners, I guess it's mainly a difference of location. I live in a rather rural area, so when we think of eviction, it's generally of homeowners...But still, why would it be morally wrong to evict renters who do not pay?

On the analytical point, I was basing it off of his other posts -but even based merely on this, you have to admit that he's better than most jurors today.

Where do you see him not willing to examine evidence?

Finally, yes, it would be amoral if he had no intention of ever voting guilty - but he should take Kant's Categorical Imperative into factor here - would he be willing for all to make this choice? This would lead to either A) A collapse of the entire justice system or B) A replacement of the jury system with a tribunal-style system.

[gallo]

Quote by: Netopalis Gallo - As far as renters vs. homeowners, I guess it's mainly a difference of location. I live in a rather rural area, so when we think of eviction, it's generally of homeowners...But still, why would it be morally wrong to evict renters who do not pay?

It isn't and I didn't say that it is. You pay your rent or you pay your mortgage or you are out. There is no moral consideration involved.

On the analytical point, I was basing it off of his other posts -but even based merely on this, you have to admit that he's better than most jurors today.

Actually, he's not. He isn't willing to consider the law and the evidence. He should speak up and get the hell out of the system.

Where do you see him not willing to examine evidence?

He said so. He said that he could not arrive at a guilty verdict in certain cases. Didn't you read what he said?

Finally, yes, it would be amoral if he had no intention of ever voting guilty

And so he stated.

- but he should take Kant's Categorical Imperative into factor here - would he be willing for all to make this choice? This would lead to either A) A collapse of the entire justice system or B) A replacement of the jury system with a tribunal-style system.

Gobble gobble gobbley gook. Do you actually think that anyone who gets a jury summons thinks about that? Like I said, if he has a problem with the law, then he needs to say so and he will be dismissed. That's what the voir dire is for. It really has little to do with either Kant or Bozo the Clown. Raise your hand and say that you have a problem. The judge will call you to the bench and you can explain. As I mentioned, I have done so twice. In both cases I was immediately dismissed.

[Netopalis]

Yes - but what would happen were everyone to do that? We would have no jury system at all - a disastrous problem, to say the least.

[gallo]

Quote by: Netopalis Yes - but what would happen were everyone to do that? We would have no jury system at all - a disastrous problem, to say the least.

But not everyone does that. Only those who have a problem in a particular case. Most people who show up for jury duty actually care. Most are honest enough to speak up if they have a problem (and be dismissed). Jurors are asked if they can arrive at a verdict based on the evidence alone. If not, you get to walk.

Why do you feel that everyone feels as you do? That would be a disastrous problem.

[Netopalis]

I don't feel that everyone feels the same that I do - I just feel that it is an irresponsible choice.

As for most people showing up for jury duty and caring, it's not been my experience that this is the case: Most don't particularly want to do it - they have to take days off work, make arrangements around the trial, and sit bored for several hours, all for very little compensation. Sad? Certainly - but it is representative of modern society.

[christibe]

Guess I am the only one left who wants the opportunity to participate in our legal system?


How come then I've never been picked? Is it 'cuz I'm unafilliated?


And sure, the criminal justice system is completely wacked, but it is the only one we have, until We the people take the stand to fix it. I am fairly Socratic I guess... I believe that since I agree to stay in this country, I implicitly accept the laws as they stand, and though I may go so far as to publicly condemn and utilize activism to change a law, if selected to perform on a jury and if that specific law turns out to be the one in question, I would put my own bias aside and faithfully execute my civic duty; to determine if the evidence provided by the accuser satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of violating that law.


anyhow though, damned idealism. for real, i am getting rather tired of it. especially if the law had something to do with a patriot act, or anything that gives government previously illegal power.

[Netopalis]

Well, Christibe, I agree with most of what you wrote, and Jury Nullification is indeed an option...but you'd have a hard time arguing for it.

[Osborn F Enready]

I wish they would ask me to serve on a jury. I am a Jury Nullification supporter, so, I would probably not be allowed to serve in Ohio if they found out before ending selections.