Jury duty

[Lightningman_42]

I have jury duty next week (for the first time). I'd like to be a good juror. Is there anything I need to know? Any advice from those who've had experience with this?

[PsYcHo]

Dress relatively nice, and leave any metal items, and your phone in your vehicle. Eat beforehand, as sometimes you will be there for a while, and food is not always provided. Be aware you may not just be called upon to decide one case, but might be looked at as a potential Grand Juror. (These are the people who decide if a case has enough evidence to proceed to an actual trial.) If this is the case, while being a noble position, it holds you to being available on a regular basis (usually monthly) and last for 6 months to a year, and may be renewed at each juncture. How you feel about this and your actions are up to you.

If it is a single case, (the most likely), you are supposed to remain objective and evaluate the crime as it relates to the current written law. However, even though you are instructed to base your judgement on the current law, you have the option of deciding to find an obviously guilty person not guilty. I only mention this in the case of someone being tried for an un-fair law (in my mind, mostly non-violent drug related offenses. If an otherwise moral person is charged with cocaine possession, what does it benefit society to lock them in a cage?)

Use your best judgement, and do what you believe is best for the general public. Lawyers and Judges can be noble, but they are also human and fallible. The jury system is a check-and-balance, so think about your decision, and do what you feel is right.

[Jebus]

Don't fall into group thinking. Let the evidence of the case form your opinion. If you have questions to the other jurors, that's fine, but don't let their opinions affect yours.

[EquALLity]

Dress relatively nice, and leave any metal items, and your phone in your vehicle. Eat beforehand, as sometimes you will be there for a while, and food is not always provided. Be aware you may not just be called upon to decide one case, but might be looked at as a potential Grand Juror. (These are the people who decide if a case has enough evidence to proceed to an actual trial.) If this is the case, while being a noble position, it holds you to being available on a regular basis (usually monthly) and last for 6 months to a year, and may be renewed at each juncture. How you feel about this and your actions are up to you.

If it is a single case, (the most likely), you are supposed to remain objective and evaluate the crime as it relates to the current written law. However, even though you are instructed to base your judgement on the current law, you have the option of deciding to find an obviously guilty person not guilty. I only mention this in the case of someone being tried for an un-fair law (in my mind, mostly non-violent drug related offenses. If an otherwise moral person is charged with cocaine possession, what does it benefit society to lock them in a cage?)

Use your best judgement, and do what you believe is best for the general public. Lawyers and Judges can be noble, but they are also human and fallible. The jury system is a check-and-balance, so think about your decision, and do what you feel is right.

I think you bring up something very important here.

If we advise people to use their moral beliefs to determine jury verdicts, we are undermining the law completely. It might as well not even exist, because in practice people are disregarding it and voting how they want. And the verdicts will go in both ways, not just good, like in the case of voting not-guilty in drug-related crimes. White supremacists might vote all non-white defendents as guilty. So if most people took the law into their own hands like that, the consequences would be very bad.

However, if you're a moral and rational person, you individually voting a way you know doesn't comply with the law is probably a good thing, as long as you don't advise the general population to do so.

^Of course, people who disagree with us would make the same argument, and say they are the moral and rational ones. But they're wrong (and again, they'd say that also, but they're still wrong).

What do you guys think?

[brimstoneSalad]

However, if you're a moral and rational person, you individually voting a way you know doesn't comply with the law is probably a good thing, as long as you don't advise the general population to do so.

^Of course, people who disagree with us would make the same argument, and say they are the moral and rational ones. But they're wrong (and again, they'd say that also, but they're still wrong).

What do you guys think?

It's cultural warfare. You don't win by abandoning your best weapons because you don't want your opponents to use them. Racists won't stop nullifying on your account. There is no such thing as a ceasefire when it comes to these things.

The vast majority are only going to nullify victimless crimes and bad laws like criminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs rather than violence, and aren't going to nullify to protect murderers or perpetrators of hate crimes (by the way, you can't really nullify to find somebody guilty instead of innocent, nullification works only because of double jeopardy -- "not guilty" instead of guilty is the only kind of nullification).

[EquALLity]

It's cultural warfare. You don't win by abandoning your best weapons because you don't want your opponents to use them. Racists won't stop nullifying on your account. There is no such thing as a ceasefire when it comes to these things.

I'm not saying that we should not nullify for morality; I'm saying that we shouldn't advise the general public to. Do you agree?

That's a good point. Racists probably won't, but it might impact other things too.

(by the way, you can't really nullify to find somebody guilty instead of innocent, nullification works only because of double jeopardy -- "not guilty" instead of guilty is the only kind of nullification).

What do you mean?

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not saying that we should not nullify for morality; I'm saying that we shouldn't advise the general public to. Do you agree?

I don't agree. Just be specific about nullifying non-violent drug offenses or something if you want.
People aren't going to nullify most violent crimes today. It's not really a risk anymore.
The largest risk is for "stand your ground" stuff, which, if somebody kills a criminal by using excessive force and gets let out now and then, that's probably a fair trade for keeping a lot of non-violent drug offenders out of jail.
Another risk is police losing a tool to incarcerate violent criminals on more minor charges when they can't make a more significant one stick, but if we stop criminalizing drug offenses, violent crime should be reduced anyway.

I think the bottom line is that progressivism is winning, so statistically speaking the odds are better if we advocate nullification than if we don't.

(by the way, you can't really nullify to find somebody guilty instead of innocent, nullification works only because of double jeopardy -- "not guilty" instead of guilty is the only kind of nullification).

What do you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

The "guilty" version doesn't really work, because the judge can just throw it out if clearly wrong, and the person will easily get an appeal.

[PsYcHo]

If we advise people to use their moral beliefs to determine jury verdicts, we are undermining the law completely. It might as well not even exist, because in practice people are disregarding it and voting how they want. And the verdicts will go in both ways, not just good, like in the case of voting not-guilty in drug-related crimes.

While I agree with you about it undermining the law, the law is not always just. The main problem I have with the political right is their attempts at legislating morality. Paul Ryan ran as VP for Mitt Romney in the last presidential election, and he was opposed to abortion under any circumstance. People like him would like to make it a crime for the woman and the doctor, and in some areas of the country that is a popular belief. Drug offenses, prostitution, gambling, and several others are "crimes" that most people are moving to de-criminalize, but the law is slower than public opinion. In some areas of the country, possessing and ounce of cocaine is punishable by a mandatory sentence of 25 years without parole. Drug dealers will often let an addict hold their supply in exchange for free drugs, so they can avoid being caught.

And yes, this can go both ways, allowing an criminal to be release when they should be imprisoned, but it is less of an injustice to society as a whole to allow some bad people to slip thru the cracks, rather than unjustly punishing someone who is not a danger to society.

[EquALLity]

I don't agree. Just be specific about nullifying non-violent drug offenses or something if you want.
People aren't going to nullify most violent crimes today. It's not really a risk anymore.
The largest risk is for "stand your ground" stuff, which, if somebody kills a criminal by using excessive force and gets let out now and then, that's probably a fair trade for keeping a lot of non-violent drug offenders out of jail.
Another risk is police losing a tool to incarcerate violent criminals on more minor charges when they can't make a more significant one stick, but if we stop criminalizing drug offenses, violent crime should be reduced anyway.

I think the bottom line is that progressivism is winning, so statistically speaking the odds are better if we advocate nullification than if we don't.

Progressivism is winning overall, but in the south, regressivism dominates... I guess it's not really clear if it would cause more good than harm.
And in some very relevant cases of violent crime, it could lead to bad things, even with altruistic intentions. For example, a person might find a murderer 'not guilty' if that person is against the death penalty, and then the murderer will be released.

And there's still the problem of undermining the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

The "guilty" version doesn't really work, because the judge can just throw it out if clearly wrong, and the person will easily get an appeal.

Ah, I see.

[EquALLity]

If we advise people to use their moral beliefs to determine jury verdicts, we are undermining the law completely. It might as well not even exist, because in practice people are disregarding it and voting how they want. And the verdicts will go in both ways, not just good, like in the case of voting not-guilty in drug-related crimes.

While I agree with you about it undermining the law, the law is not always just. The main problem I have with the political right is their attempts at legislating morality. Paul Ryan ran as VP for Mitt Romney in the last presidential election, and he was opposed to abortion under any circumstance. People like him would like to make it a crime for the woman and the doctor, and in some areas of the country that is a popular belief. Drug offenses, prostitution, gambling, and several others are "crimes" that most people are moving to de-criminalize, but the law is slower than public opinion. In some areas of the country, possessing and ounce of cocaine is punishable by a mandatory sentence of 25 years without parole. Drug dealers will often let an addict hold their supply in exchange for free drugs, so they can avoid being caught.

And yes, this can go both ways, allowing an criminal to be release when they should be imprisoned, but it is less of an injustice (I assume you mean less immoral) to society as a whole to allow some bad people to slip thru the cracks, rather than unjustly punishing someone who is not a danger to society.

Why?