The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Jury Duty is it the best way?

Jury Duty is it the best way?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Snake
That would be horrific.

I think this thread was started with good intentions thinking about the working class man only getting $30.00 a day instead of his pay packet.

There are many self employed etc. Perhaps they could establish a way to pay full day’s wages for under a certain wage and nothing to petrol for those in better positions.

Mental health checks and checks to enquire are there any people who have been abused should be made.

Sometimes people store up aggression from such experiences and inflict their injurious and unhappiness upon others.

Normally these people do not handle power at all and tend to disagree in order to draw attention and disrupt.

You get someone like that in a jury and your bound to have problems- Lets alone the accused
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snake you addressed the issues, and gave my case a kick along .
My concerns are long held we do see the guilty walk free too often we are stunned by Juror out comes.
And one poster reminds us of a infamous case that saw a supporter on the Jury, has it happened often?
You are not on my list StG but I grinned at your post.
May I highlight the surprising and needless shot at my age by DEMOS?
Are we to discard those who we disagree with if they are older than us?
I would have thought a new way of justice might be driven by the young, even a new way of government?
Last we must not fall for doing our civic duty as a reason for doing it as the only under paid people in that court house it is a con job!
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 28 February 2008 5:07:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was on a jury once. Thank god the accused ended up pleading guilty because one of the jurors was a real....ummmmm....well, you get the idea. Much like your example. The system is flawed, no-one will debate that. I do struggle with the idea of 'tweaking' the fundamentals that is the foundations of what we are as a society because of the 'what's next' ideology. It happens on the microcosm of the cross section of society that is multiplayer gaming all the time... :o) Oh you laugh now, but when one individual gets his agenda passed by the collective then every man and his puppy has a shot at theirs.

You've got my vote for fair remuneration. For the few days I was on jury I made about 45 bucks....and they supplied food. Big whoops.
Posted by StG, Thursday, 28 February 2008 7:16:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a bit like democracy, really. The jury system is the least worst way to achieve justice.

In William Blackstone's seminal opus "Commentaries on the Laws of England" back in 1765, he opines that

"The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely entrusted to the magistracy, a select body of men, and those generally selected by the prince or such as enjoy the highest offices in the state, their decisions, in spite of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary bias towards those of their own rank and dignity: it is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should be always attentive to the interests and good of the many."

I don't think much has changed in 250 years. I'd sooner trust my peers than "the authorities", any day.

For good measure, he goes on to say:

"...a competent number of sensible and upright jurymen, chosen by lot from among those of the middle rank, will be found the best investigators of truth, and the surest guardians of public justice. For the most powerful individual in the state will be cautious of committing any flagrant invasion of another's right, when he knows that the fact of his oppression must be examined and decided by twelve indifferent men, not appointed till the hour of trial; and that, when once that fact is ascertained, the law must of course redress it. This therefore preserves in the hands of the people that share which they ought to have in the administration of public justice, and prevents the encroachments of the more powerful and wealthy citizens."

That's about as convincing an argument as you can get for doing your duty to your fellow citizen, and accepting jury duty as a valuable right, and not just an annoying interruption to your life.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:19:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been talking about the issue in real life, it gets people interested.
Of note is a large very important person in charge of many.
You would expect him to be a leader and he is, but his quote stunned me the most.
Quote
40 years ago I was a young country lad in a big city for the first time.
I threw a few Punch's at a bloke and was taken to a police station and flogged by 2 cops .
Blood all over me I was a mess, after they found out my dad was a JP and respected in our home they made up a lie to cover up the flogging.
Young blokes grow up I still never trust the police, end quote
How would he go on the jury?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:23:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As i had a rather colourful past(teen years) and have also been a victim
of crime i exempted myself using those reasons.I also stated that i was unable to be impartial as to some particular crimes.It worked for me and i have not been called for jury duty in the 35 years since i turned 21.
If i were to runafoul of the law now,i would opt for a judge only decision. I am not so blameless that i believe i have the right to judge others.
Posted by haygirl, Monday, 3 March 2008 10:26:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy