In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Jury: 12 people too stupid and unimaginative to get out of jury duty.
I do hope you're joking.
Not even a little bit. I have no faith in the jury system, having seen how some of them behaved. Two cases in point: The O.J. Simpson trial, and my first custody hearing. In both cases, the jury simply chose to ignore overwhelming evidence and rendered stupid decisions.
I would like to see professional juries, volunteers who actually want to serve, not people conscripted and pulled off their jobs. That might work, and the jurors, after some experience, might not be as easily impressed and swayed as the bunch that made their first trip to the courthouse this morning.
oh boy, 12.50 a day and parking isn't even free. we get a $1 discount at some garages. they sure make it hard to have a good attitude about being here.
the "greeter" was nice enough but the lady running the show is a ball buster. guess she has 80 new idiots to deal with every monday.
well, let's at least hope for some interesting cases.
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Not even a little bit. I have no faith in the jury system, having seen how some of them behaved. Two cases in point: The O.J. Simpson trial, and my first custody hearing. In both cases, the jury simply chose to ignore overwhelming evidence and rendered stupid decisions.
IMHO, the OJ verdict was clearly an example of the jurors following the letter of the law, and NOT performing jury nullification! Given all the airplay prior to the trial, it's a wonder they could seat a jury and hold a straight face while doing it! That was a case of the prosecution failing to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ did it. They had to use a civil trial to get the verdict they wanted. IMHO, the police tried to set him up: you don't drop a glove AT THE SCENE, then carry the other all the way to your very doorstep! Did he do it? Probably. But the prosecution couldn't PROVE it. IMHO, that meant the system worked! I viewed the Civil trial as nothing more than Double Jeopardy.
I, too, have NO faith in the legal system. I've had 2 property management firms take care of my condo while I was busy elsewhere. The 1st tried to force me into foreclosure by failing to pay the HOA dues, as required by our contract. When I took him to arbitration, the COONT arbitrator ruled on an issue that wasn't raised by either side, and one she could NOT have investigated in the time it took her to rule. In the end, i had to pay about $1K in costs because the OTHER guy breached our contract.
The 2nd company let this Section 8 Housing Assistance coont move in. They: 1) failed to get the security deposit; 2) failed to get the rent due prior to moving in; 3 & 4) failed to perform the Move-In or Move-Out inspections; and 5) failed to have my carpet repaired when it was flooded by a neighboring condo. The tenant did $3K in damages, including cig burns in the carpet; doors with holes punched in them, broken blinds, etc. It took the Judge SIX MONTHS to rule that it was, somehow, a FRIVOLOUS case (despite another Judge having 2 pre-trial hearing to determine just this; he agreed my case had merit and let it proceed), and that *I* was the one in breach of contract for moving back in 9 days prior to the end of the current lease, despite an agreement with the tenant that it was okay and she wouldn't have to pay for those days. Absolutely NO mention of the actions of the mgmt company - not a SINGLE line about the FIVE breaches of contract that, in the end, allowed the tenant to move in and cause the damage. That cost me $8K, and it's on Appeal, though I have yet to hear from the Court in 4 months.
quote:I would like to see professional juries, volunteers who actually want to serve, not people conscripted and pulled off their jobs. That might work, and the jurors, after some experience, might not be as easily impressed and swayed as the bunch that made their first trip to the courthouse this morning.
If we have professional judges, professional lawyers, why not professional juries? Not like they would all serve together on every case, but I would like a jury to know when a lawyer is grandstanding or trying something underhanded that the Judge is ignoring.
Personally, I'd like to see the law profession changed. A 5-year program would get you a law degree, essentially what a paralegal does now, and you'd do the grunt work - write leases, handle estates, etc. To argue a case in court would require the equivalent of a Master's Degree, and a thesis based on original research, just like any other Master's program. You'd argue your thesis just like any other grad student.
Being the lawyer on a death penalty cases or becoming a Judge would require the equivalent of a Ph.d. - serious research, a dissertation, etc. At least 2 years of actual court experience (no less than, oh, 25 felony-level cases argued and won - pick your own number).
Judges would be seated by the Governor (no more elections) and would serve 6 year terms. Only 2 consecutive terms, then you have to sit out for 6 years before you could be reappointed for 1 or 2 more terms - 2 in, 1 out; 2 in, 1 out.
State Supreme Court justices would require at least 2 terms as a judge, and would also serve 6 year terms (2 in, 1 out, just like before).
As a few have noted above, lawyers look for the least-qualified to sit on a jury. That's not the way to run a legal system.
As a few have noted above, lawyers look for the least-qualified to sit on a jury. That's not the way to run a legal system.
That makes absolutely no sense. I've been doing jury trials for 15 years and there have always been two or more sides to every trial. Competing interests....
Are you the one that is filing all these "frivolous" lawsuits I keep hearing about?[:D]
Now there is something we can agree on. How can you have no faith in the system and yet say we, as jurors, have to abide by the system and not bring our own beliefs into the mix?
Jury Nullification is a tool we can use when the system is failing to serve the citizens, as it failed to serve you.
Comments
Jury: 12 people too stupid and unimaginative to get out of jury duty.
I do hope you're joking.
Originally posted by nunn
Jury: 12 people too stupid and unimaginative to get out of jury duty.
I do hope you're joking.
Not even a little bit. I have no faith in the jury system, having seen how some of them behaved. Two cases in point: The O.J. Simpson trial, and my first custody hearing. In both cases, the jury simply chose to ignore overwhelming evidence and rendered stupid decisions.
I would like to see professional juries, volunteers who actually want to serve, not people conscripted and pulled off their jobs. That might work, and the jurors, after some experience, might not be as easily impressed and swayed as the bunch that made their first trip to the courthouse this morning.
the "greeter" was nice enough but the lady running the show is a ball buster. guess she has 80 new idiots to deal with every monday.
well, let's at least hope for some interesting cases.
Not even a little bit. I have no faith in the jury system, having seen how some of them behaved. Two cases in point: The O.J. Simpson trial, and my first custody hearing. In both cases, the jury simply chose to ignore overwhelming evidence and rendered stupid decisions.
IMHO, the OJ verdict was clearly an example of the jurors following the letter of the law, and NOT performing jury nullification! Given all the airplay prior to the trial, it's a wonder they could seat a jury and hold a straight face while doing it! That was a case of the prosecution failing to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ did it. They had to use a civil trial to get the verdict they wanted. IMHO, the police tried to set him up: you don't drop a glove AT THE SCENE, then carry the other all the way to your very doorstep! Did he do it? Probably. But the prosecution couldn't PROVE it. IMHO, that meant the system worked! I viewed the Civil trial as nothing more than Double Jeopardy.
I, too, have NO faith in the legal system. I've had 2 property management firms take care of my condo while I was busy elsewhere. The 1st tried to force me into foreclosure by failing to pay the HOA dues, as required by our contract. When I took him to arbitration, the COONT arbitrator ruled on an issue that wasn't raised by either side, and one she could NOT have investigated in the time it took her to rule. In the end, i had to pay about $1K in costs because the OTHER guy breached our contract.
The 2nd company let this Section 8 Housing Assistance coont move in. They: 1) failed to get the security deposit; 2) failed to get the rent due prior to moving in; 3 & 4) failed to perform the Move-In or Move-Out inspections; and 5) failed to have my carpet repaired when it was flooded by a neighboring condo. The tenant did $3K in damages, including cig burns in the carpet; doors with holes punched in them, broken blinds, etc. It took the Judge SIX MONTHS to rule that it was, somehow, a FRIVOLOUS case (despite another Judge having 2 pre-trial hearing to determine just this; he agreed my case had merit and let it proceed), and that *I* was the one in breach of contract for moving back in 9 days prior to the end of the current lease, despite an agreement with the tenant that it was okay and she wouldn't have to pay for those days. Absolutely NO mention of the actions of the mgmt company - not a SINGLE line about the FIVE breaches of contract that, in the end, allowed the tenant to move in and cause the damage. That cost me $8K, and it's on Appeal, though I have yet to hear from the Court in 4 months.
quote:I would like to see professional juries, volunteers who actually want to serve, not people conscripted and pulled off their jobs. That might work, and the jurors, after some experience, might not be as easily impressed and swayed as the bunch that made their first trip to the courthouse this morning.
If we have professional judges, professional lawyers, why not professional juries? Not like they would all serve together on every case, but I would like a jury to know when a lawyer is grandstanding or trying something underhanded that the Judge is ignoring.
Personally, I'd like to see the law profession changed. A 5-year program would get you a law degree, essentially what a paralegal does now, and you'd do the grunt work - write leases, handle estates, etc. To argue a case in court would require the equivalent of a Master's Degree, and a thesis based on original research, just like any other Master's program. You'd argue your thesis just like any other grad student.
Being the lawyer on a death penalty cases or becoming a Judge would require the equivalent of a Ph.d. - serious research, a dissertation, etc. At least 2 years of actual court experience (no less than, oh, 25 felony-level cases argued and won - pick your own number).
Judges would be seated by the Governor (no more elections) and would serve 6 year terms. Only 2 consecutive terms, then you have to sit out for 6 years before you could be reappointed for 1 or 2 more terms - 2 in, 1 out; 2 in, 1 out.
State Supreme Court justices would require at least 2 terms as a judge, and would also serve 6 year terms (2 in, 1 out, just like before).
As a few have noted above, lawyers look for the least-qualified to sit on a jury. That's not the way to run a legal system.
As a few have noted above, lawyers look for the least-qualified to sit on a jury. That's not the way to run a legal system.
That makes absolutely no sense. I've been doing jury trials for 15 years and there have always been two or more sides to every trial. Competing interests....
Are you the one that is filing all these "frivolous" lawsuits I keep hearing about?[:D]
BTDT,,, they never get to me and tell me to go home.
The criminal justice system is nothing more than a money machine.
They pay us $25 a day to decide on some poor saps fate.
Never been chosen for a jury. I would love to get chosen on a
murder case or a carjacking case.
They don't want me but I gotta go up there on the 22nd.[:D]
Now there is something we can agree on. How can you have no faith in the system and yet say we, as jurors, have to abide by the system and not bring our own beliefs into the mix?
Jury Nullification is a tool we can use when the system is failing to serve the citizens, as it failed to serve you.