Jury Duty

free2beme

I experienced Jury Duty today, for the first time. I have never actually been called before, as a Witness or as a former Witness. It was so boring, and so routine. I especially loved the video they showed us, that explained how it was out Civic Duty to be in a jury and made light of the fact that people often try and get out of Jury Duty. They then covered what was acceptable to be excused, and it was made very clear that you can not be excused for religious reasons. Which kind of showed me that such an excuse must come up from time to time. Anyway, they took us to a court room and asked us questions. The case was on DUI and they asked me if I could present a fair verdict. They were shocked when I said, "No." I then explained how a friend of mine died in a Drunk Driving related accident and how it was one of the worse days of my life and I would not be able to cloud those feelings to not see DUI as something I despise. What l loved, was before they excused me, I got to see how unethical lawyers can be. As the final question that got me excused was, "... but if we presented to you, only evidence that shows this man is innocent and nothing that showed guilt. Could you come back with a not guilty verdict?" I answered, "That sounds like a perversion of the justice system, to say you would sway a jury to find a man not guilty by some legal loop hole and I would be suspicious and would probably favor guilt, as I would feel I was being lied too or told half truths." No joke, right after I said that, they excused me.

Oh well, at least I did not try the religious excuse. LOL Anyone else serve in the process since your exit,

R.F.

I haven't yet, but my mother went to a jury selection today and she didn't get picked. It was for a double murder trial.

So many people I know went for jury duty today.

John Doe

I fail to see how their question shows them being unethical. You said you would find a man guilty even if the evidence showed he was not guilty, so they didn't use you. Are you saying they should have used you? I'm not following you.

free2beme

Trust me, I was glad to leave. Maybe you did not hear, what I heard in their question. I heard " ... we will censor information to you .... leaving out anything that does not help our case .... the man not be innocent .... but we will only show enough to make you vote not guilty." I don't like being played and that seems to be our countries judicial system, which I do not respect such a thing. I find it a weakness of our society, and a loop hole.

John Doe

So, you think a lawyer is being unethical if he presents his side only? The other side is present and has access to everything the opposing side does. If it's pertinent to the issue you'll hear it. You might not agree with what the definition of guilt is, but you will hear everything pertinent to that definition.

free2beme

you think a lawyer is being unethical if he presents his side only?

Yes. I think it is a perversion of the law to manipulate information to not come to the right conclusion. Especially when done to try and make some one who is guilty, look innocent, but because they are "high price lawyers." I have no respect for it, at all.

John Doe

So, you're saying the defense should argue the prosecution's case?

free2beme

So, you're saying the defense should argue the prosecution's case?

I am saying that the truth is all that matters and not games. If the Defense knows they are guilty, it should not be about manipulating information. If the Prosecution knows they are innocent, same thing. I think both sides "LAWYERS" are all playing a game with truth and the limits of truth. Much like the Witnesses, and that ruins are judiciary system and does not enhance it. I take you back to OJ, yet again, as those jury members had said in post interviews that had they seen what the common man saw on the news and not what the lawyers limited them too, the verdict would have been different. So we see it is not about one arguing one side or the other, it is about who is playing what with truths and information, Maybe that does not bother you, but it bothers me.

John Doe

What bothers me is your seeming willingness to lynch innocent people with a misguided sense of "justice," while simultaneously insulting and slandering some of the people who fight harder for justice and fairness than you will ever know.

free2beme

As Mr. Smith was on his death bed, he attempted to formulate a plan that would allow him to take at least some of his considerable wealth with him. He called for the three men he trusted most - his lawyer, his doctor, and his clergyman. He told them, "I'm going to give you each $30,000 in cash before I die. At my funeral, I want you to place the money in my coffin so that I can try to take it with me."

All three agreed to do this and were given the money. At the funeral, each approached the coffin in turn and placed an envelope inside.

While riding in the limousine back from the cemetery, the clergyman said, "I have to confess something to you fellows. Brother Smith was a good churchman all his life, and I know he would have wanted me to do this. The church needed a new baptistery very badly, and I took $10,000 of the money he gave me and bought one. I only put $20,000 in the coffin."

The physician then said, "Well, since we're confiding in one another, I might as well tell you that I didn't put the full $30,000 in the coffin either. Smith had a disease that could have been diagnosed sooner if I had this very new machine, but the machine cost $20,000 and I couldn't afford it then. I used $20,000 of the money to buy the machine so that I might be able to save another patient. I know that Smith would have wanted me to do that."

The lawyer then said, "I'm ashamed of both of you. When I put my envelope into that coffin, it held my personal check for the full $30,000."

Jury Duty

Share this