Ask questions and get advice, or share advice. Disclaimer: Any advice you take here is at your own risk. We are not liable for any consequences you might incur from following someone's advice here.
Note: Before posting your question, do a search for it in the Google Search box at the top to see if it's already been addressed.
I just turned 21 and I have been called up for jury duty, but am conflicted about going. My main concern is opposition to the system. It seems utterly baffling that someone such as I would be asked as a representative. While I consider myself generally more intelligent and informed about politics and the legal system than my peers, as little as two years ago this would not be the case. Schooling left me utterly ignorant and I had to educate myself after the fact in preparation for voting - another thing I regret having done. I now oppose universal suffrage. The problem with pure democracy is that it represents the lowest common denominator. How does president Obama capture the youth vote? Hanging out with rap stars. I think the minimum voting age should be raised to 35, when people are eligible for the presidency. So I feel the same about juries, that completely ignorant people should have no part. While I still consider myself less ignorant than others my age, I do not feel my age group is responsible enough for this duty.
My father is a defense attorney and I do not know how he would take this. I do know that countries like Singapore and Israel lack juries. Even France doesn't have juries for many cases if I am not mistaken. I've also heard Louisiana is more restrictive about using juries in civil cases. Does anyone have an opinion on the jury system? Should I try to get out of jury duty? I do not think my age group is worthy of this responsibility.
Here's Lee Kuan Yew on why Singapore abolished trial by jury:
"I had no faith in a system that allowed the supersitition, ignorance, biases, and prejudics of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence."
Lee used to be a defense attorney, but felt guilty himself when four murderers he defended were acquitted.
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/singapor ... /lky2.html
Didnt realize SG had abolished juries, thought it was British law. Live and learn.
Re 35, sure, today, yes that would be better... but best solution is to ban the stupidity culture, and abolish mandatory public programming/education, as well as alimony and child support. If most kids began working in early teens, as is normal, and there was no system of handouts, and no culture except what was approved by heads of families -- then the 21 year old, with real life experiences and callouses on his hands would be a worthy juror, and gaining thereby some of the life experience which would eventually qualify him to hold office, lead the militia, and educate the young. If I recall, George Washington was 21 or younger when he led colonial militia against the French. While was well-regarded, and educated, I don't think his age was considered that unusual.
Young people today may be grossly uneducated, and almost universally immature, but they of course did not create this idiocracy. Their elders did.
As it is, we are saved from anarchy only by all the retirees and also government workers (God help us) who DO accept jury duty. Otherwise it just be the welfare recipients.
Believe me, you are more qualified than most.
And you will learn a lot.
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
As a conscientious man, it would be silly to not serve on a jury.
For all the complaining that guys do on this forum about the legal "p***y pass," you would think that most would make the connection that conscientious men need to be judges, attorneys, and jury members who actually decide what facts are true.
Think about like this, would you turn down the chance to prevent a man from being jailed by some lying, vindictive female? Would you turn down the chance to prevent some drop dead gorgeous women from be let off after molesting one of her students? Would you turn down the chance to jail a woman who beat her husband?
If not, sit on a jury and do your civic duty. Just as it is up to each of us to serve as witnesses for other men being wronged by women, it is up to us to sit on juries to check women and the legal p***y pass.
Any man suggesting that you should not serve as a jury member is an unmitigated fool because juries have immense POWER. You might not even be picked to decide a case, but you have an obligation to attempt it to check the femocentric stranglehold on the legal system.
It is your choice, but if you decline, don't ever complain about how unjust the system is with men because you would be contributor to that very problem!!!!!
If you do not take care of a system of juries, you many find yourself eventually without that option where your guilt or innocence
has been decided beforehand. Juries may have their faults, but if you have ever faced an angry mob or a member of the secret police in a dictatorship, you will think juries are a really good idea.
Back in the US I was on a jury for an armed robbery case and I also was a witness in an aggravated assault case.
At first it seemed a slam dunk for convicting with the robbery case (Black thuggish young guy accused of driving the car
for the robber to escape.) as it seemed certain he was guilty. Being the decedent of some Scottish privateer types I have a certain skepticism about authority and had doubts about some of the prosecution witnesses. The victim was a black woman, and ironically, I found myself strongly arguing that the case had not been made and that a reasonable person could doubt some of the witnesses vs three black women on the jury who where "100% sure" that he was guilty as sin. I was able to convince one of those women and ultimately we ended up with a not guilty verdict. I followed that case a bit afterwards, and found out another witness came forward, and
another similar looking black man was arrested and quickly copped a plea as it turned out he had been caught on security video-tape near the scene driving that very car. The true function of juries is not to be suck-up for prosecutors, but to defend the innocent from the government and punish real criminals. (Some of whom are also part of the government. That is one very useful function of Grand Juries- to go after corrupt government officials.)
The other case as an assault on a police officer that nearly killed him in one on one combat with a thug that irrupted one morning in Arizona while I was pumping my gas at a QT in Arizona. Now I don't even like most cops, but this detective was about to be killed with his own gun. Now I came to pump my gas and get a donut, not to play gladiator, so this Mexican thug was showing complete disrespect for my tranquil morning, which really pissed me off. I was nearly 50 and this thug was maybe 30 and chunky- obviously a boxer.
From about 15 feet away I yelled "Hey b1tch!" and that got him to turn and sneer at me. Now THAT was really really disrespectful so I went through the wall of red and had him in a kill position in about 6 seconds. He had a knife as it turned out, but fortunately made no effort to use it, as I would have had to kill him and that is always a sad thing. I think he was just another lost young man and he went from the hospital to jail and is still there to this day.
It made an impression on me when I was sworn in as a witness- I felt all my ego and various opinions fade and felt respect towards those in the room. To some, it is still holy to swear to tell the truth and the whole truth, so help me God.
One man can make a difference- remember that. Contrarian is on target. Men have an obligation to stand up on juries and elsewhere.
If I was ever accused David, I would pray that I had young men like you on the jury.
Eventually the detective and his wife came to my house at the time. My young daughter let him in. His wife told my daughter, "I'm here to thank your daddy." One man can make a difference, David. You may have a good destiny in that regard.
The problem is I can see both sides of this. You make a good case Outwest, but I can hardly discount the opinions of such heavyweights as Lee Kuan Yew. With great power comes great responsibility, but what if I shouldn't have that power in the first place? Wouldn't my responsibility be to relinquish my power? I may be something of an exception as I am reasonably intelligent and educated for my age, but a legal and political system or even a personal life philosophy can't be based on exceptions.
Mr Lee should have maintained some of his reluctance at the thought of legal abuse.
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2007 ... isons.html
Okay, I see what you're saying, but I'll play the devil's advocate. Reading that I felt I could replace all the names with American ones and it would still hold up. America operates black jails and secret courts; I have no doubt about that. The Singapore story describes the 60's and 70's. What about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? My own father has Gulf War Syndrome.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ex ... ted_States
If you really want to get out of jury duty, all you need to do is take a black magic marker and put a big swastika on your forehead and say the following, "if I get selected for jury duty, can I sit the front row?"
Last edited by pete98146 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Abuses in the US do not somehow make it better in Singapore. The point was, that with a history as he had, Lee was hardly
a reliable commentator on civic duties and values.
What if you live overseas and you get a jury duty notice? What then? How do you tell them that you are overseas to prevent these notices? Who do you contact?
Don't you get paid if you are on a jury?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.
Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
If you live overseas, you should just throw it out, without making any response whatsoever (i.e. EuroBrat's approach). Don't contact anyone or you may be forced to give up U.S. address, and because of that, U.S. financial accounts etc.
Pay is minimal and not worth it. Might cover parking and lunch, if that. Unchanged for a century. I would support flat pay of like $100 per day, so more people would serve.... but noone asked me.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests