"It's Easier to Bury a Tradition Than a Child"

[Kaabi]

I didn't realize tractors caused so much death! I'll have to prohibit any children from riding my baby.

 

[gemini5362]

I have been called up for duty twice but only empaneled once.

Getting out of jury duty doesn't show how smart you are but how little you really care for our society. You want the benefits but none of the responsibilities.

Don't sulk in the corner with tears streaming down your face but... I personally think dodging a duty, a civic responsibility is not indicative of good citizenship. If you are smart enough to weasel out of a responsibility then you are smart enough to help tip the scales toward better juries.

Yes, I volunteered for military service during the little fracas called Viet Nam. No I did not get a draft notice to spur that action.

There are at least three major categories of "kids on the merry-go-round", 1. the ones helping to keep it spinning, 2. the ones getting a free ride, and 3. the ones dragging their feet. They say it takes all kinds but I am willing to try it without so many of some of the kinds.

So many people shirk their duty and then complain how bad the system is. Well du-uh!!!!

No, I don't volunteer to pay extra taxes but I would if I could earmark the $ for what I wanted to fund.

I don't sleep covered in an American flag. I don't feel comfortable shouting love it or leave it but I do think you should try to help fix it and if not you have absolutely no right to complain.

We need to do the right thing even when it isn't fun, profitable, being noticed, or popular.

Pat

Many of the people who read mine and pats posts probably notice we agree a lot more than we disagree. Never have I agreed with any of pats posts as much as I agree with this one.

 

[gemini5362]

Gator6x4, I think you misunderstood my point regarding a 'jury of your peers'. I totally agree with this concept and I understand that it is fundamental. What I disagree with is the currently employed concept of 'peer'. We are not all peers. I don't think I'm the same as or equal to everyone else. I know this sounds un-American (but its not, of course, since at least up until recently Americans acknowledged and valued the differences that exist among us). I know it sounds elitist, but I think 'peer' should at least be loosely contextual relative to the trial and the defendant. For instance, take this young Marine being charged with a war crime by a civilian court (since he is no longer in the military). He WILL NOT be granted a trial with a jury of his peers. He will have no true peers in that jury. There is no way any group of men and women office and/or factory workers who have no combat or military experience, or even the vaguest notion of what this Marine experienced can be his peers or even hope to give him a fair trial. That's not elitist, is reality. His jury should be composed of people who have at least been in the military or police and preferrably had at least some exposure to combat situations.

And if someone disagrees with that, that's perfectly fine. If you believe that 'we' are all the same, or at least similar enough to be called peers, then you have to admit that the current jury selection process is grossly unfair. If we are, in fact, all peers, then the only selection criteria should be the minimum requirements to serve and among that pool of potential candidates the selection should be totally random and no provision made for idealogy, religious back ground, politics, sexual orientation, education, gender or race. Right? If we're all the same, any random one of us should be as good as the next. Right? This is the standard we are held to in regard to everything else, why not jury selection?

I have not read all the responses to this post yet but i am going to post this one before I finish reading. First of all what is meant by peers. Is that someone of the same financial background, the same ethnicity, the same gender, the same sexual preference, the same age, the same geographical location of residence. I have not seen a really good definition of peers. I see most of the people that are complaining about the system have the means to influence their ELECTED leaders to change the system. If you dont like your jury selection system work to either change the system or change the elected officials that can change it. I agree that in my experience the amount of money paid to jurors is atrocious. I however really dont want to have to pay the taxes that it would cost to change that. Make the pay equal to the salary of the juror. So what if Bill Gates is setting on the jury for a long trial that might last a month. I am sure the county he lives in would not like that paycheck. Judges that dont allow financial hardships as a reason are wrong. Change the judge. It is especially hard on lower income or some self employed. There are some employers that make up the difference in pay between jury pay and if the employee had actually worked. There are actually a rare group of employers that give the employee their regular pay check for working and then let them keep the jury pay as an incentive for being on the jury. I can pretty well some up the problem with all the discrepancies in the system very easily with one statement. Life isnt fair.

 

[patrick_g]

Many of the people who read mine and pats posts probably notice we agree a lot more than we disagree. Never have I agreed with any of pats posts as much as I agree with this one.

Thanks Thomas, I see you read and understood my post instead of finding it to be condemning some thoughts and actions of yours that you would rather defend.

Gee, as a group we sure don't like our system and since it is so bad WE FEEL JUSTIFIED IN GETTING EVEN BY SHIRKING OUR DUTY. What a bunch of cop outs and rationalizations!

If you aren't part of the solution (or at least trying to make it better through your participation to increase the average IQ and ability of a jury and or through the ballot) then you are part of the problem (just griping and pointing your finger in a thousand different directions at all the BAD THINGS about jury duty when your finger should be pointed at yourself much of the time.)

What a demonstration of herd instinct, form a circle, lower your horns to the outside of the circle to defend your vulnerable backside.

Oh, and I think William Jefferson Clinton would applaud the comments on peers. When the language was originally penned what were peers? What was the intent of the authors?

A common definitioin of peer is: a person of equal social standing, rank, age, etc. We may have to settle for free citizens who have reached the age of majority in the jurisdiction in question. It is unlikely that we will assemble a jury of brain surgeons to try a brain surgeon or a jury of Mensans because the defendant is Mensan.

Pat

 

[N80]

First of all what is meant by peers. Is that someone of the same financial background, the same ethnicity, the same gender, the same sexual preference, the same age, the same geographical location of residence. I have not seen a really good definition of peers.

Yes you have. It is any citizen that meets the minimum eligibility requirements. That is how our current system defines peers.

I see most of the people that are complaining about the system have the means to influence their ELECTED leaders to change the system. If you dont like your jury selection system work to either change the system or change the elected officials that can change it.

I'd have to check back with my civics teacher but I'm pretty sure elected officials cannot change the jury selection system, therefore, neither could a citizen or group of citizens. I suspect this would have to be changed in the courts. The citizens have no influence in the courts outside of electing officials who will appoint judges that they want appointed. Obviously this is the mother of all 'long shots'. So let's put aside the notion that the whiners need to quit whining and 'do something'. It is a dead cliche'.

Judges that dont allow financial hardships as a reason are wrong. Change the judge.

Now maybe its you who need to consult elementary civics. In most states and in the federal government there is almost no way to change a judge!

Life isnt fair.

That is obvious. But what do you mean by it?

 

[N80]

Gee, as a group we sure don't like our system and since it is so bad WE FEEL JUSTIFIED IN GETTING EVEN BY SHIRKING OUR DUTY. What a bunch of cop outs and rationalizations!

Patrick, you are not paying attention nor do you seem to understand my responses. It is not shirking your duty to avail oneself of the legal and ethical means by which not to serve on a jury. Making oneself available to the call is doing your duty. So quit with the name calling, it is inappropriate and ignores the facts which have been presented.

If you aren't part of the solution (or at least trying to make it better through your participation to increase the average IQ and ability of a jury and or through the ballot) then you are part of the problem (just griping and pointing your finger in a thousand different directions at all the BAD THINGS about jury duty when your finger should be pointed at yourself much of the time.)

WRONG. And talk about hollow cliche's! Again, the jury selection process is such that it is geared towards rejecting people who demonstrate that they have the intellect and personal conviction not to be manipulated. That has nothing to do with anyone shirking their duty. If the process selects AGAINST those who could potentially improve the system....how is that the fault of the citizen?

What a demonstration of herd instinct, form a circle, lower your horns to the outside of the circle to defend your vulnerable backside.

It is pretty ironic that that is what you accuse me/us (those who feel the system is broken) of, when that is the exact thing that the jury selection process selects FOR! The 'sheep' is who they are looking for!!!

Oh, and I think William Jefferson Clinton would applaud the comments on peers. When the language was originally penned what were peers? What was the intent of the authors?

I don't know. Its a valid question. Unfortunately constitutional intent has little regard in the current courts and pragmatism. But I suspect you would be shocked by what our forefathers considered peers. Slaves? Nope. African-Americans, even free ones? Nope. Women? Nope. Those who owned no land? Nope.

A common definitioin of peer is: a person of equal social standing, rank, age, etc. We may have to settle for free citizens who have reached the age of majority in the jurisdiction in question.

What do you mean by "may have too"? That IS (obviously) the current definition in the practice of jury selection. And what do you mean by "settle"? Does that mean that you too agree that it isn't the best way to do things?

It is unlikely that we will assemble a jury of brain surgeons to try a brain surgeon or a jury of Mensans because the defendant is Mensan.

I agree. It might be hard. But either we attempt what is hard or quit misleading people about a jury of peers. THAT at least would be quite simple if we had the fortitude to admit it to ourselves and admit that outside of military courts we've never really achieved it at all....at least not in the last 150 years.

But let's make things real clear here Patrick. Those of us who see a problem and comment on it are not the HERD. The herd never sees a problem. The herd animal never steps out of the herd and says "Hey, what the heck is going on here!" The herd follows broken systems and governments blindly assuming that everything is okay. It is those who step out of the herd and point at the problem who start the processes that make things better.

Just because the system is structured so that 'we' can't really have an impact does not make us whiners or "shirkers". So you're just dead wrong on that account. It also takes a great deal of hubris to ASSUME that I/we aren't doing something about it to the best of our ability. You accuse us of whining but not acting but you have no idea what I/we might be doing. So that's just another assumption you cannot support.

And if educating people, even here at TBN, is the best we can do....then we are still doing something!

 

[gemini5362]

Yes you have. It is any citizen that meets the minimum eligibility requirements. That is how our current system defines peers.



I'd have to check back with my civics teacher but I'm pretty sure elected officials cannot change the jury selection system, therefore, neither could a citizen or group of citizens. I suspect this would have to be changed in the courts. The citizens have no influence in the courts outside of electing officials who will appoint judges that they want appointed. Obviously this is the mother of all 'long shots'. So let's put aside the notion that the whiners need to quit whining and 'do something'. It is a dead cliche'.



Now maybe its you who need to consult elementary civics. In most states and in the federal government there is almost no way to change a judge!



That is obvious. But what do you mean by it?

It has been a long time since I lived in South Carolina and I dont remember how they do certain things but in Arkansas ALL of our state judges from The Supreme Court down to local judges are elected by the people of the state or individual county depending on jurisdiction. I am not sure where the system for choosing juries comes from in my county but I live in one county and work in another. I talk to people that live in the same county I work in and the system for selecting jurors is different in the two counties. Having two different systems for selecting jurors in adjoining counties makes me think that there is not a state constituitional mandate on how to select jurors in Arkansas. If the selection process is mandated by individual counties then either the elected officials in that county or possibly a popular vote in the county should be able to change the method. The judge is the final authority on who can be relieved of jury duty in my county but as I mentioned earlier if there is too much of a problem with a judge then the next time that judge is up for election vote for someone else.

 

[gemini5362]

Now maybe its you who need to consult elementary civics. In most states and in the federal government there is almost no way to change a judge!(quote)


http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...ctCheck_judicial_conference_THIS_IS_FINAL.pdf

What do you consider most states. If this link is correct only 11 states dont elect judges is 11 what you consider most states ?

 

[gemini5362]

I'd have to check back with my civics teacher but I'm pretty sure elected officials cannot change the jury selection system, therefore, neither could a citizen or group of citizens. I suspect this would have to be changed in the courts. The citizens have no influence in the courts outside of electing officials who will appoint judges that they want appointed. Obviously this is the mother of all 'long shots'. So let's put aside the notion that the whiners need to quit whining and 'do something'. It is a dead cliche'.

S.C. Code of Laws Title 14 Chapter 7 Juries And Jurors In Circuit Courts - www.scstatehouse.net-LPITS

According to this link Jury pool selection methods are under title 14 of South Carolina link. It seems to be a law not a constituitional mandate. If it is a law then I believe elected officials could change it. Perhaps if you check with a local community college they will let you audit a course on South Carolina Physics so you can be more informed in some of these type of discussions.

oh by the way from what I was reading judges in SC are elected by the general assembly so they are one of the 11 states that dont have elections for judges. Of course the general assembly is made up of elected officials and I believe if I had a big enough problem with a Judge I would have a chat with my elected official and how he reacted to my concerns would affect how I voted for the elected official in the next election.

 

[N80]

As you mention, in SC judges are not elected. I actually prefer it that way. Elected judges have a long history of decisions favoring those who get them elected. Of course appointments have their own problems too.

But civics classes and your recent web research aside, that is hardly the point. The point is that 1) great inertia exists within the system. Good things remain good and bad things remain bad and political activism does little or nothing to change that. This is hardly a secret. And 2) You have no idea what I have actually done in regard to political involvement. So criticism that those of us who complain are ONLY complaining is unfounded. Its an assumption and nothing more and in that regard needs to be dropped. And 3) even if I/we were not doing whatever it is that you or anyone else thinks we OUGHT to be doing, that changes nothing. It is perfectly within my purview as a free citizen to be a critic of the system and nothing more. There is no moral or ethical code that says a citizen is required to be an activist if he wishes to criticize the system. In fact, the idea is perfectly ridiculous. And furthermore, good, thoughtful and public criticism is far more likely to have an affect than writing your local congressman.

And remember, I'm not the one who has resorted to labels and name calling (shirkers?!?!?). So I have nothing to defend. I have have not made any ad hominem accusations.