I can imagine lying to get on a Jury

[cthulu2016]

I might feel morally obliged to in rare instances, if the circumstance presented itself.

I have a problem with limiting juries to people who agree that a given law is just. Doesn't seem like a very representative panel of peers when, for instance, they are limited to those on one side of a political issue.

Say someone is charged with a crime under a law that is pretty plainly unconstitutional. The correct legal procedure is to convict that person of the crime and let an appeals court sort out the constitutionality.

But how could you convict someone like a woman charged with violating the "personhood" of a fetus, for instance? Even if it was sure to be struck down later... no, I couldn't do it.

Now imagine if the jury was personhood-qualified... that jurors were struck who thought the personhood law was bullshit. The remaining jurors would be, on average, anti-choicers more hostile to the defendant than a random citizen. Hardly seems fair.

We already do this in cases involving the death penalty. Only people who would sentence to death are allowed on the jury. But the population of people who countenance capital punishment, morally, is going to be skewed Right-Wing. A death-qualified jury has to be somewhat more bigoted, somewhat likelier to convict, somewhat blood-thirstier than a random jury.

So yes, if I thought a law was very fucked up I might lie about my stance on it.

I can see many problems with this, of course. Many "nullifiers" would be wing-nuts. (Easy to immagine a hung-jury on tax evasion with the hold-out being one of the "income tax is unconstitutional" crowd.)

I grant that in practice it would be hard to ever convict unanimously under a law so controversial that lots of jurors would be eager to "nullify" the law. But maybe a criminal law should have extremely wide public support.

Maybe the jury system ought to be a de facto super-majority requirement for criminal laws.

[DirkGently]

1. In favor of a defendant, I'd follow the law.

The idea that anyone should convict someone criminally because they "just know" they're guilty, or have decided they are a terrible person based on circumstances or press accounts, is vile and eye-wateringly stupid.

I had to listen to the old ladies in lawn chairs here in Florida that "just knew" the Casey Anthony jury were all crazy or brain-dead, because they wanted someone sent to her death on the basis no one could possibly have a tattoo and have told completely zany lies to the police and not be legally convict-able of first-degree murder.

We have laws for precisely the reason that "gut instinct" can be wrong. Is wrong. Frequently. If I or someone I care for was sitting in the defendant's chair, I'd expect the jury to look at the evidence and mind their instructions, and not have weasled their way into the jury in order to render a verdict they'd decided on ahead of time on their personal hatred for the defendant.

Everyone else would too. Amazing how many can't admit it.

[Fumesucker]

2. Ever seen Twelve Angry Men?

Good movie about a jury and it speaks to your post.

[DirkGently]

3. I think I have, but it's been a long time.

... and I seem to have killed my Flash abilities in a fit of pique.

But for you, I've read the Wiki entry.

I'd be Juror No. 8 in a heartbeat.

[newcriminal]

4. +1

[Nevernose]

5. Go watch a void dire sometime -- it's fascinating

People lie all the time to not only get out of jury duty, but to get on the jury. Most seemed to just want to be part of the action, which, after a lifetime of Law & Order and Perry Mason seems understandable.

The last time I served on a jury, I didn't exactly lie, but I did try and be more agreeable than I often am. Probably the biggest truth I've ever told was, "Look, your honor, y'all don't start work here until ten. Normally I get to work at six and don't get home until nine at night, so a week of jury duty would be like a week of sleeping in and vacations for me."