GET THE FUCK OUT! ARG! (Jury Duty)

[FlowerChild]

FC glad you came up with a way to get out of it. I never have to worry about being called a juror my past makes me inelligable- yay me

Damn...now I like you even more than I did before. Stop that :)

[Rianaru]

Not sure if this would actually work, but I may or may not have heard somewhere that you can claim to be biased against the defendant/prosecution simply because they are the defendant/prosecution. Sort of like believing in a self-fulfilling prophecy that the defendant will always be guilty or innocent. Take your pick.

Then again, this may be complete and utter BS, but I have no idea because I've only gotten a summons once and have never actually had to sit on a jury :)

[FlowerChild]

Well for what it's worth I think you are very unlikley to get the types of cases you seem to be worrird about. Having done jury duty 3 times I ended up sitting on 4 cases and being in the pool for another 5 (where I was either challanged or not randomly selected). In all 9 instances the charges were very black and white (two were assault, for example). The decision was not, of course, you have to weigh up the evidence (that's pretty much the point!) but I would suspect you would be very unlikley to be weighing up evidence for a dubious law.

I think you're severely underestimating the nature and quantity of laws that I feel to be dubious ;)

Like look, I've been in a number of bar fights in my life. Would I ever want to convict someone of assault that got drunk and wound up in a brawl? Of course not. It would make me a total hypocrite.

[Ferrus.Manus]

I think you're severely underestimating the nature and quantity of laws that I feel to be dubious ;)

Like look, I've been in a number of bar fights in my life. Would I ever want to convict someone of assault that got drunk and wound up in a brawl? Of course not. It would make me a total hypocrite.

Even then most assault cases are much more straight forward still - it's usually bunch of assholes ganging up on someone or someone braining somebody else from behind. Most of one-one-one bar brawls doesn't end in court usually. And if it is a case you described - then you can vote not guilty and give the guy better chance of not getting punished for it.

[DaveYanakov]

As someone who has had to defend their use of a beer bottle for self defense in court, your position sounds a bit ivory tower and/or naive. If I hadn't had witnesses willing to testify, I would have been properly screwed and had a two to three year sentence in my backstory.

[Folrig]

See...that mystifies me. Interesting or no, are you prepared to live with the consequences to someone else's life if you fuck up?

At the root of it, I personally object to judging another person in this manner. My main objection to it is that I could not go through with this without winding up feeling like a total hypocrite, and likely doubting myself for the rest of my life.

Interesting really doesn't factor into it. I acknowledge the necessity of a criminal system in a modern society, but I do not want any part of participating in it.

Man, I can think of a hundred scenarios that could come out of this which just have no good result. What if, for example, I am put in the position of basically being asked to enforce a law which I don't personally believe in (and there are plenty of those), but which a person is obviously "guilty" of? I do not believe I could do anything but call them not guilty based on my own conscience, and I do not even know what kind of shit-storm that would cause.

I understand. There is a lot of the law that I disagree with too. I want to know if it is possible to be objective. In my chosen career path I figure I have about a thirty percent chance of getting sued. Either by a mistake I make or frivolity, and I would like to know if the jurors can be trusted to make the right decision regardless of what it is.

I wouldn't worry about you being picked. They'll ferret out your biases right after they ask your name. This isn't my first rodeo. Last time was funny. The jury chosen was made up of all middle aged white professional males and one young black woman. I had just been laid-off and told them I was a cashier. If they had known what I was before I think I'd have been picked.

I don't know that this will make sense, but being picked as a juror appeals to my sense of duty. I live in a representative republic where everyone has a right to trial by jury of peers. I want to give as much as I can and be as fair as possible, because that is what I'd want someone to do for me.

[OldMarriedDude]

FC glad you came up with a way to get out of it. I never have to worry about being called a juror my past makes me inelligable- yay me

Damn...now I like you even more than I did before. Stop that :)

Ummm No

[FlowerChild]

I live in a representative republic

Please don't bring politics into this. The above is a highly debatable point of view.

[Dralnalak]

At the root of it, I personally object to judging another person in this manner. My main objection to it is that I could not go through with this without winding up feeling like a total hypocrite, and likely doubting myself for the rest of my life.

FlowerChild:

I work in the legal field in the US, and as part of that I have see how potential jurors are questioned and chosen/discarded in a number of cases. Assuming you are in the US or in a country with a similar culture to the court system, your statement above made with clear and obvious belief will get you removed from most jury pools as a freebie. (Meaning neither side will have to spend one of their vetos.) Someone whose beliefs makes it impossible for them to pass judgement on another as required by the jury system is not a good juror and is one that they will want to remove from the case.

This probably won't get you out of having to show up and/or call in to see if you're being put in a group of potential juror for a trial, but if you genuinely can't serve as as a juror, you genuinely can't. Many judges will understand that.

To be clear: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.



And if that doesn't work, tell them about hardcore chicken mode. Though that might get you a little more attention from the courts than you really want.... ;)

[FlowerChild]

This probably won't get you out of having to show up and/or call in to see if you're being put in a group of potential juror for a trial, but if you genuinely can't serve as as a juror, you genuinely can't. Many judges will understand that.

Thanks man. I believe that an honest statement of why this is a bad idea for all parties involved is the best policy here. I don't want to get into theatrics or what have you. I was unaware of the whole jury nullification thing, and now that I am, it appears that it just represents who I am with no bullshit involved.

The only reason I would have considered bullshit (which I generally try to avoid in my life) to begin with is that I wasn't aware this was possible. Now that I know that it is, it's all good. Showing up and what have you is not an issue for me. I just don't want to wind up in a situation that is morally impossible given my own personal beliefs.

[TheAnarchitect]

My grandfather informed me, on my day of majority, how he got out of jury duty for 50 years. He simply said "I am an engineer. I base my decisions on verifiable facts and place no weight on emotional appeal." Lawyers always kicked him.

[finite8]

Didn't you know? Jury Duty is fun!



Cause Pauly Shore said so.

[tedium]

Hmm... It's too bad permaban isn't really a legal action you can advise...

haha i laughed pretty loudly at that :)

I've been called for Jury duty twice, and both times I simply had to point out that as a student jury duty could adversly effect my studies. In Australia, they present you with the best excuses in tick box format. The other main one's are "I run my own business and therefore can't take time off work" and "I'm related to a police officer/public servant in the legal system and there am biased towards the prosecution."

Personally though, I want to use "I follow the philosophy of anarchism and therefore would instinctively believe in the most disruptive outcome" or simpler still "I hate police and am therefore naturally biased against the prosecution" and if requested to offer evidence, I'd break out into the hit rap song by NWA "F&^k The Police!"

Having said that, I think the most important thing is to be reasonable and business like when presenting your argument against being a juror. They will respect that, and hopefully assist with the process. The last thing you want is for them to decide to put your story to a judge for a decision. Not because of the potential 'contempt' charge, but because it will be a waste of time.

[FlowerChild]

Personally though, I want to use "I follow the philosophy of anarchism and therefore would instinctively believe in the most disruptive outcome" or simpler still "I hate police and am therefore naturally biased against the prosecution" and if requested to offer evidence, I'd break out into the hit rap song by NWA "F&^k The Police!"

Again, stay away from politics please.

...and I believe it was Body Count, not NWA.

[FlowerChild]

Actually, this is just rapidly going down hill. Going to lock it down.

Thanks for the help though guys. Learning of jury nullification will likely be of great help to me.