so how does this jury system work?

[undercutter2006]

I've never been called to a jury duty yet, but if I were, I would probably vote to find the defendant not guilty and thus cause a mistrial, unless it was something really fucked up like rape or murder.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with doing drugs or selling drugs, to me that's a personal choice that people have to deal with on their own. So if I was on a jury that was trying to convict a drug dealer, I would not let it happen. And I would not wimp out on it either during the jury selection, I would flat out lie about being a moral citizen who respects all the laws, but when it's time to vote, I would be like - nope, I just don't see enough evidence to convict this person :)

Same with petty larceny. Shit, I am pretty wealthy right now but I remember the time when I was poor as fuck and had to steal some shit just cause it sucked being poor. So I would not ever vote to convict a poor person stealing from a store or from a bank either

I am just waiting for my jury selection notice to arrive in my mail, just so I can go in there and fuck the system up :) :) :)

How about you?

p.s. what I really don't understand, is why there are so many convictions on marijuanna charges in this country, since there are so many people that don't believe there is anything wrong with smoking pot? don't any of them make it to the jury? it makes no sense

[Maddy McCall]

1. You don't have to worry about sitting on a jury.

You'll be disqualified on the first go-round because of your inability to treat jury service as the important duty that it is.

Every defendant deserves a FAIR trial. So does every crime victim.

[undercutter2006]

5. like I said I am intelligent enough to lie about it

after all, this is what college is all about - convincing your professors that you actually care about any given subject while bullshitting your way through it, trust me, I have enough experience

[Maddy McCall]

11. Didn't you just ask "How does the jury system work?"

Sorry, but even a public defender would spot you from a mile away.

And we professors aren't as dumb as you think. We realize that students like you aren't worth the time to mentor...we put you through so that we don't have to see you again next semester.

"Bullshitter" students are always noticed by professors.

(I easily spotted yours in your brief OP. I'd have pegged you on your first writing assignment in my class...or the first time you opened your mouth. Unfortunately, we can't fail students just because they are arrogant pricks.)

[undercutter2006]

14. it's not different from any other kind of a relationship

humans are social animals. if you can flirt successfully with the persons of opposite sex, you have enough tools in your toolbox to get past any professor or any public defender. it's the same kind of a skill

[Maddy McCall]

16. Soon enough, the girl finds that you have empty pants.

Soon enough, the prof finds that you have an empty head.

Soon enough, the prosecutor and defense find that you're not even smart enough to know the basics of what a jury trial is.

[undercutter2006]

17. first of all most people are fairly ignorant of the intricacies of our judicial system

so I am not that far off the median here. second, it would be much easier to bullshit your way through a couple weeks of trial duty than it would be to bullshit your way through a semester long class or through years of relationship. especially if you are dealing with a public defender who is there mainly to collect her paycheck

all I am saying, is that I stand a very good chance of getting on a jury and letting a petty criminal go free if I put my mind to it. I am not going to act like a clown, I am going to keep my mouth shut and say all the right things, until it's time to vote for the verdict :)

You know, they always say that it's good for young people to have goals....

[Horse with no Name]

28. Yeah it is all a big joke and scheme to you...

relationships...the criminal justice system...college.

Too bad that at SOME point in time, the last laugh will be ON you.

[undercutter2006]

38. no, education and relationships are obviously not a joke

I just got carried away arguing my point, in retrospect that was my bad, I apologize, I did not mean to say that your education or personal relationships should be looked at as a scam

[knight_of_the_star]

39. That destroys the whole system

If you were the victim of a crime would you want someone like you on the jury?

[undercutter2006]

42. yes, of course

I have my morals, they are just different from yours

Like I said I would never ever put another person in prison where they are going to be caged like freaking animals and abused, just because they sold some drugs to other adults

[knight_of_the_star]

47. So you would want someone who would let the perp off?

You would be ok with someone refusing to enforce the law if you were the victim in a case? Nevermind the people who suffer and die in other countries thanks to heroin and coke dealing and abuse so that people here can feed their habits, I guess that's never no mind to you and your morals.

[undercutter2006]

52. if it was a nonviolent drug case, then hell yeah

you might wanna read through the entire thread before you post because that is what I just said

[Book Lover]

31. you need to read

http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com ,snowflake

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. sounds like you got a lot out of college...

glad to see it was money well spent...

sP

[Skittles]

53. you need to grow up

you are not mature enough to serve on a jury

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. Every juror has the right...

to decide on the law aswell as the facts of the case. Despite what some people, especially those in the criminal justice system would have you believe.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Absolutely.

[lapfog_1]

19. There is even a term for this

called jury nullification.

I.E. the person is guilty of the crime committed, based on the facts admitted into evidence, but the jury believes that no crime has been committed ( for whatever reason ).

[glowing]

2. Huh... this doesn't make any sense.. they probably wouldn't pick you

to actually sit on a trial.. they are pretty good at weeding out people who can't understand that we have laws, whether we agree on them or not, and that is the judgement we are making as the facts are presented to us.. And on the other side of the fence, if you ever do need a trial by jury, you would hope that you receive a fair, impartial jury of your peers to decide whether the law had been broken. I think more people would decide to the lesser charges if they knew how many years an individual was facing while they were deliberating... You are not told how many years someone is facing or what will happen to the person or how many "stikes" they have.

[undercutter2006]

7. they will pick me

if I have a general idea of what kind of answers they are looking for

or at least I am going to give it my best try :)

[knight_of_the_star]

41. No you won't

Prosecutors and defense attorneys who know their shit will pick you out pretty quick as someone who shouldn't be on the jury. Voire dire is a fairly comprehensive process, ANYTHING that could flag you as incapable of rendering a fair verdict will get you booted.

Not to mention that juries have alternates. You CAN be booted during the course of a trial if it is believed you cannot be a proper juror.

[sandnsea]

3. Most cases are plea bargains

Usually the only cases that get in front of a jury involve crimes so bad that you would not be playing games with the criminal.

[Maddy McCall]

4. Actually, lots of stuff goes to juries.

Everything from drugs, to DUIs, to burglaries. Lots of misdemeanors end up in county courts.

And all of those defendants--and victims--deserve a fair, serious, objective jury.

[sandnsea]

13. Actually

I think if I said the sky was blue, half of DU would show up to argue with me.

Most cases are plea bargains.

[Maddy McCall]

15. Indeed most are.

But county courts across the US are clogged with cases before juries.

[knight_of_the_star]

43. That has more to do with the volume approaching

I heard at a seminar I went to on law that something like 90% of all cases get plea-bargained out but the sheer volume of what is going in compared to the number of courtrooms, staff, etc to handle it still leads to considerable backlog.

[lapfog_1]

6. voting innocent would not result in a mistrial

Show up for the jury selection, answer the questions honestly. You probably won't be selected.

If you are flippant about your answers ("I don't think anyone is every guilty") then you might well face further questioning by the judge.

There are convictions because there are laws against using or possessing or selling marijuana. Viewed from a strictly legal standpoint, someone caught with the drug is likely guilty of breaking the law. However, there is also the concept of jury nullification, that is, the jury MAY disregard the law or make a claim that the law doesn't apply to the defendant in the case before them. And while a judge may order a mistrial in the case of jury nullification, they are often loath to do so... because a trial by a jury of our peers is a right guaranteed in the constitution.

[undercutter2006]

10. doesn't the jury decision have to be unanimous for the person to be convicted?

correct me if I am wrong

[lapfog_1]

18. Yes.

for criminal proceedings.

But if you vote innocent, and the rest of the jury votes guilty, it could be a mistrial by reason of hung jury... or the other jury members, swayed by your vote of innocent and sticking to it, might well decide that they don't care enough about a guilty verdict to stay long enough to get a hung jury and you end up with a "not guilty".

More likely, if you vote innocent, it's quite possible that other jury members who have yet to make their votes known, will also join you in the innocent vote. Get more than half of the jury and you are well on your way to a "not guilty" verdict.

Read a book about the jury deliberations in the OJ trial for a good example.

[knight_of_the_star]

44. A mistrial is not the same as an acquittal

Just means that a new trial is scheduled and if the prosecution wishes to proceed then they will.

[water]

9. I agree that drugs should be legalized...

... but what you are saying is "if I don't agree with a law, I'm going to make sure people can break it." Would you allow others the same privilege, or would you only allow them the privilege if they agree with you?

With that attitude, I'm sure you won't force me to pay taxes. I mean, if people should be allowed to break (and assist others in breaking) laws with which you (they?) disagree, you wouldn't want to force me to buy products and services (essentially what taxes are) if I don't want to, right?

And your support for theft is troubling. If someone "needs" money (how does one define that?), should they be allowed to steal from someone who "doesn't need" money (how does one define that?)?

Thank goodness you aren't in power, you'd be quite the petty tyrant.

[kdmorris]

20. Not everyone who goes to trial

is unfairly accused and should be found not guilty. This is the stupidest post I've seen in a while.

I have been called to jury duty quite a few times. I got seated once on a trial for a man accused of raping his five year old daughter. I don't guess the defense attorney could challenge everyone because I was very up front about my experiences with my ex-husband, who was abusive. As soon as the jury was seated, the man pleaded guilty and we were dismissed.

Another one that I got to the questioning stage for involved a very old man who apparently had an alcohol problem and wouldn't leave the lobby of the local rehab center. Problem was, he wouldn't leave because he was passed out, so they they arrested him for resisting arrest. They were not able to find a jury for that case, as everyone thought that was just retarded. I believe he was eventually let go.

The last time I had jury duty, a man was suing his insurance company for injuries incurred in an automobile accident. Now, this was after all the Hurricanes in Florida, and there were not too many people who were happy with insurance companies. I answered everything honestly, but was not chosen because the insurance company didn't like me much. I didn't care. They didn't like anyone much, because everyone in the room had had a crappy experience with an insurance company. After pulling in waves and waves of people and spending 7 hours trying to find a jury, they did finally find 6 people who could be impartial.

You are underestimating your ability to lie. Sorry, but you are. Since you have never had jury service, you have no idea what kind of questions you are going to be asked. They record all the answers in the court recording, and write down much of what you say as well. Inconsistent answers will be jumped on immediately.

By your logic, the first guy you would have given a fair trial to, the second and third people you would have let off. Now, I wouldn't have voted to convict that man in my second scenario either, but I guarantee you that if you were the only one acting like you WOULD convict him, they would be pretty upset with you, and wonder why you were acting so much different than the rest of the jury pool. And letting the insurance company off... I don't really know if that was really a just lawsuit or not. But I know that insurance companies aren't held accountable for the damage THEY cause and I would have been horrendously pissed off if you fucked it up for me and I was the guy suing.

And finally, just because you cause a mistrial doesn't mean that someone will get off. Sometimes it means that you just waste more taxpayer money to re-try the person/company with a different jury. And, in that case, you do us ALL an injustice.

Think before you post. This is really a very dumb idea.

And welcome to DU.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. dummy? wow...you sound liberal

:sarcasm:

sP

[kdmorris]

33. Dang and I missed it

Guess that's what happens!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

34. trust me...you didn't miss much... n/t

[undercutter2006]

35. lol, not sure why my post was erased

all I said was that as a liberal I tend to be pretty sympathetic to people who get fucked over by the system, so if a poor person steals something just to make ends meet I would be inclined to just let them go (unless they stole from another poor person or actually hurt someone)

second, I don't understand why would you vote to convict someone on drug charges if you believe that this 'war on drugs' is pretty damn ridiculous (as I believe most people on this board do). I would never vote to get someone caged like an animal no matter how much drugs they did or sold. If you have a problem with that, let me ask you a question - do you support the war on drugs? Do you think it's a good thing we are doing here?

So it's not that I want all criminals to go free, it's more a case of civil disobedience on my part

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. you called the poster a 'dummy'

and that is likely why your post was deleted...

sP

[undercutter2006]

40. lol, really?

Was it because calling someone a dummy is such a big insult on its own terms here, or was it because that could be an insult to use against democratic underground posters, as in if you post on DU you must be a DUmmy, lol. I honestly wasn't thinking about that at the time

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. yes, attacking someone's intelligence, even as a joke

is considered poor form and will likely be deleted...

sP

[undercutter2006]

56. in that case most of the replies here MUST be erased !

They are attacking my intelligence, aren't they? In an indirect way.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

65. nope...they are attacking your position

as am I...and THAT is definitely allowed...

sP

[rug]

21. You get it.

I'd pick you.

[Dorian Gray]

23. To be fair and honest

I've had a few friends who were arrested for marijuana use, but never went to trial. They pleaded out, paid a fine, and have closed records. Nothing to see.

[melody]

24. Do you have any idea how many cocky young guys have tried that same thing?

Trust me, you're not as unique as you think.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. shhhh...he's 'feeling his oats' this morning

let him go about his deluded way...

sP

[Thothmes]

29. Jury duty

So the fellow that is being prosecuted for selling heroin or meth to the the local 4th graders is going to get a thumbs up from you at his trial?

[undercutter2006]

36. that's like asking

would you prosecute all homosexuals having sex with each other, or only those who have sex with kids

why you bringing kids into this, punk?

[knight_of_the_star]

46. Because looking at the logic of your posts and OP

You wouldn't care about such extenuating circumstances. That and there is a difference between the two examples you give too. One is an act between two consenting adults. The other is rape and quite frankly I could care less if an adult does that to someone of the same or different sex it is still twisted and wrong not to mention horribly traumatic to the child in question.

But hey, damn the evidence and the circumstances, I want to finger the system because I think I'm hot shit!

[undercutter2006]

50. it's not about 'fingering the system'

as you have so eloquently stated. It's that I feel that there is nothing wrong with an adult choosing to do drugs (Amsterdam has been pretty lenient about it and they are doing pretty well as a society the last time I checked), and also that our prisons are ran like torture camps. I've never been to prison but I have been to jail a couple of times, and let me tell, it's not about 'rehabiliation'

[knight_of_the_star]

54. In spite of what you say in your post

I do not take your words with any degree of credibility because of your own admission to bullshitting professors and desiring to bullshit the jury system.

[Thothmes]

55. Dodging the question?

In the real world some people do stoop to selling drugs to kids. You said "if I was on a jury that was trying to convict a drug dealer, I would not let that happen." Does that mean you would really vote to not convict a person that sells heroin or meth to kids. Simple question, a yes or no is all that is requested. This has nothing to do with homosexuals or pedophilia.

[undercutter2006]

57. it's called an allegory

Like I said if it's proven that the person in question was actively hurting someone (like selling drugs to kids or having sex with kids, same difference), then of course I would vote to convict them. That doesn't mean that I think that doing drugs or having sex is bad on its own. You see the allegory now?

[Thothmes]

59. I do not see an allegory in the following statement

"If I was on a jury that was trying to convict a drug dealer, I would not let that happen." That Sir. is a very straight forward and unambiguous statement. there is nothing before or after your statement that would indicate consideration for any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. That said, I am glad that there are circumstances under which you would convict a drug dealer provided sufficient evidence to the crime was presented.

[undercutter2006]

61. and I have clarified that statement since then

do you want me to copy and paste my other posts in this thread that would sufficiently address your concerns?

what the hell

read the entire thread before you post, people, I beg you

[Dorian Gray]

60. Allegory?

Where is the allegory?

[undercutter2006]

62. metaphor?

where is the chute? where are the boxes ?

[Horse with no Name]

30. We can all wish that sometime in the future

that you find yourself at the mercy of 12 of your fellow citizens.
Hopefully there won't be anyone with the attitude "if they arrested him, they did it"...
which is the polar opposite of how you feel.
Both are wrong.

Oh...btw...your college money was wasted. You are a lousy speller. You should have paid more attention to the course content than you did trying to game your professor. The money would have been better spent.

[mainegreen]

32. They rarely pick young men for jury duty.

I went once where they were picking for 5 cases. Guess how many young men (less than 35 years old) were picked?

NONE!!

[undercutter2006]

48. how were they dressed?

If I were called for the jury duty I would actually put some effort in not being dismissed. I would dress formally, but not too formal, i.e. shirt tucked in , tie, slacks, dress shoes, look well groomed etc...

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

51. When my dad was young, he got called.

It was actually a drug case, and he said he had been working graveyard shift and looked like a homeless man, so the prosecutor threw him out with a peremptory.

There definitely are biases.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

49. Prosecuter would throw you out, and the judge would support it.

Don't be too over the top and make him at least use a peremptory challenge.

[WillowTree]

58. As one who served as a jury foreperson for three months

with 15 others, all of whom took the responsibility seriously and cared enough to try to make the system work, I find your attitude appalling. I have nothing but admiration and respect for those people I worked with so closely those months. Your attitude is an insult to those good people. Dishonesty never serves to make things better.

[undercutter2006]

63. not if you believe that "the system" is flawed

I mean COMMON! Most people here could go on and on forever about how our whole system is unfair to the poor people, how the drug laws are unfair to the minorities, but when you actually have a chance to get on inside the system and sabotage it, now you wanna wimp out? really? at least give it your best shot

[bemildred]

64. Given that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world,

I think passive resistance and quiet sabotage is entirely warranted. Or course the result will just be more attempts to vitiate the jury system, which you can see already happening.

[Jed Dilligan]

66. There is nothing more boring than sitting in a courtroom

for any reason. I would recommend not participating at all. My 100% formula to get out of it:

In a civil trial, "I hate lawyers." In a criminal trial, "I hate cops." Both are true and easily disqualify me.