maxcarnage Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 well i am here sittting in the jury waiting room. waiting... and waiting. so far it is not that bad, i have only been here for 3o minutes, and this is my first time so i am pretty excited. but i came perpared to wait, i have my ipod loaded with the office, my ds and of course minimates! luckily they have internet acces, so i am posting this post and hopping you will all lend me your support or tell me some great stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthRaider Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Good... luck? So any idea what the case is yet? (Mind you, my sum knowledge of what "jury duty" is comes from TV courtroom dramas.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SErge Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 i had been summed three weeks ago, but it was cancelled. it was suppose to be my first time too! hope you get an easy one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he is supposed to divulge that information, NR. I have been fortunate, and never had to serve myself, so I have no jury-related stories to tell . Just remember Max, if the glove doesn't fit, then you must acquit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthRaider Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he is supposed to divulge that information, NR. I have been fortunate, and never had to serve myself, so I have no jury-related stories to tell . Just remember Max, if the glove doesn't fit, then you must acquit. Oh, well I guess that makes sense Forgot about all that legal confidentiality stuff. The more you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 You all knew that this ol' cynical guy was going to say he'd done jury service...be honest you just knew didn't you? It was no fun but very interesting. It taught me 2 great lessons in life ,the first being......if you are as guilty as sin , plead 'Not Guilty' & there is a reasonable chance of being acquitted . The second lesson was that the jury system works in favour of the criminal & not the victim. I was on an attempted murder case. The 'perp' had held a loaded sawn-off shot-gun to the head of his victim in full view of numerous witnesses. Through some miracle the gun malfunctioned twice . The 'perp' pleaded 'Not Guilty' to every charge & protested he had merely tried to frighten his victim. Amazingly 2 of our jury believed him Winchester Crown Court is one of the most intimidating places I have ever been to & a Crown Court judge is someone that I ,personally,would never f$@k with. An experience! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 When I took a study abroad course in London years back, we actually met a Crown Court judge, and it was interesting meeting and discussing some differences between our two systems. The guy seemed disgusted with the idea that we actually elect some judges here in the states, but I was thinking that political appointees could be just as undesirable in some circumstances, as anyone familiar with the Justice Department under Gonzales could attest. Do you want politicians as judges, or political hacks as judges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Our judges all come with legal qualifications acquired 'through the ranks' for at least ten years & are generally appointed by their peers. A High Court judge theoretically has no political bias . I am more in awe of their power rather than their integrity,intelligence or morality! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) I have observed that your system is set up with certain individuals being given disproportionate power without an "institutional" check. You don't have a real executive branch, you have the House of Lords, which though fairly toothless, is completely undemocratic. Here, even with political appointees, they can usually be (and are often) thrown out when the next guy wins. And with elected officials, they have to pander to the base and their contributers, or they won't get re-elected. In either case, power is constrained. The lifetime appointment of supposedly "unbiased" peoples possessing power and influence (such as our Supreme Court Justices) often makes me feel uncomfortable. Of course, our whole system was set up to account for the flaws in yours, and these factors morph into the values that we all develop as young kids, so I guess that's no surpise USA USA!! Edited September 16, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthRaider Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 coughcoughPoliticscough So how about them court summonses, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Here in the states, we have "civil court," where you basically agree not to have a jury, and let the judge decide the verdict. Some of these appear on television, and have colorful hosts such as a Texas judge who wears a cowboy hat and has a baseball bat instead of a gavel I believe. Another is Judge Judy, who often appears on Larry King Live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 My wife had jury duty last week, but she ended up getting dismissed. Hopefully, maxcarnage, if you get called, you won't get sequestered. The second lesson was that the jury system works in favour of the criminal & not the victim. Which is the whole point of having a jury, at least in the States. Karamozov, I understand your discomfort with lifetime appointments, but it works much better than the alternative. Electing judges is the worst idea ever. In the criminal context, this means judges focus on convictions when they should focus on, you know, being fair and unbiased and preserving constitutional rights. Those "civil court" shows are a joke and are pretty much nothing like real court. Although you can elect to not have a jury trial and instead have a bench trial in front of the judge only. Most people are better off in front of 12 (ideally and unrealistically) unbiased jurors rather than 1 seasoned judge. Btw, I'm an attorney with a focus on criminal defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm actually a political scientist in training, and being familiar with how voters vote and why (factors that people running for office also understand and exploit), I know very well many of the drawbacks of electing judges. . .or anyone else, for that matter In an ideal world, all judges would be apolitical, "unbiased," career-track civil servants. But at least here in the states, we have difficulties finding these mythical creatures. The Supreme Court is made up of 9 people, and each stays on until they decide to retire, or until death. The idea is that these people will be the ideal type of judge that we are talking about, and that their job stability will contribute to their independence. Problem is, every president in recent years has, when the opportunity has come up, elected someone who followed their political philosophy. So, 5/4 splits on Supreme Court decisions along "party lines" are way too common. And these people are supposed to explicitly interpret the law based upon the Constitution, but that document seems always viewed through party-affiliated glasses. I wish there were some better way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm actually a political scientist in training, and being familiar with how voters vote and why (factors that people running for office also understand and exploit), I know very well many of the drawbacks of electing judges. . .or anyone else, for that matter I wasn't trying to say you didn't. Apologies if it came out that way. It's just a frustratingly real problem that we have to deal with on a daily basis. I think appointments, while problematic (and I agree they are very, very much so), are a better alternative to elections. But I guess that is why there is no uniformity among the states on judicial selection. Sigh. Why can't our ideals be real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docholliday666 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 My wife had jury duty last week, but she ended up getting dismissed. Hopefully, maxcarnage, if you get called, you won't get sequestered. The second lesson was that the jury system works in favour of the criminal & not the victim. Which is the whole point of having a jury, at least in the States. Karamozov, I understand your discomfort with lifetime appointments, but it works much better than the alternative. Electing judges is the worst idea ever. In the criminal context, this means judges focus on convictions when they should focus on, you know, being fair and unbiased and preserving constitutional rights. Those "civil court" shows are a joke and are pretty much nothing like real court. Although you can elect to not have a jury trial and instead have a bench trial in front of the judge only. Most people are better off in front of 12 (ideally and unrealistically) unbiased jurors rather than 1 seasoned judge. Btw, I'm an attorney with a focus on criminal defense. I could have used your help when I was younger lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The second lesson was that the jury system works in favour of the criminal & not the victim. Which is the whole point of having a jury, at least in the States. OK I see that I need to elaborate as I KNOW why we have juries ......impartiality being foremost. In the case of the guy tried in my example he was as guilty as sin & as soon as he was cross-examined,he admitted immediately (his first words) that although he was carrying a fire-arm he wasn't going to use it. One of the charges he had pleaded 'not guilty' to was 'carrying a fire-arm in a public place' .....almost laughable! The judge blatantly 'led' the jury throughout the trial & to be fair we were basically superfluous to the whole show...I chose the word 'show' carefully! The defence was non-existent & merely played on the fact that 'murder was not the intent'....if you bruise somebody's head by pushing a sawn-off shotgun & pull the trigger TWICE ON EACH BARREL in my book you were intending to kill the guy. It was just bloody sad that the guy wasn't just hauled in front of the judge without a jury,found guilty & just disposed of humanely with a single shot from a well-kept fire-arm in the same way all drug-shit should be! I repeat that 2 of our jury had 'reasonable doubt' about what the 'perp's ' intention was These two jurors were stupid...plain stupid! Sorry Mods! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) I wasn't trying to say you didn't. Apologies if it came out that way. No worries, Turtle. I was not meaning to say that you were trying to say that I didn't. Apologies if my blatherings came off that way As to BHM's post, that is unfortunate, but as you say, the system is pre-disposed toward not guilty convictions. The presumption of innocence, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, allowing for anyone to be set free so long as "reasonable doubt" remains as determined by a jury of "peers" that very likely includes one or two idiots (just due to the law of probability), etc. Though your case is a shameful one, on the aggregate, perhaps it is better to keep a few guilty individuals out of jail than to have more innocents in it. Or maybe not. Edited September 16, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I enjoyed those days under Margaret Thatcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yeesh. That sounds like a rough case. I don't know how it is over there, but here we have what are known as lesser-included offenses which are crimes similar to the one charged but not as serious. So a jury over here considers first the primary offense. If you can't agree, you go to the next crime down, and so forth until you have a verdict (guilty or not guilty) or a mistrial. Because of that, we don't often get full acquittals or mistrials. A jury can normally compromise and reach some resolution to get a guilty verdict, just for a lesser crime than the one initially charged. Does that make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 So the times have changed since "12 Angry Men"? I wasn't aware. That makes a good deal of sense on its surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I hope I'm making sense ? The guy WAS found guilty because the 2 numb brained 'maybe nots' were cajoled into agreeing that the guy was guilty. At the end of the trial we learned that this guy had a record as long as your arm. You mention '12 Angry Men' ................a stunning film which sums things up rather nicely. What was the name of that famous basketball -player again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I didn't get that before, BHM. So the system does work! What was the name of that famous basketball -player again? You don't mean OJ Simpson, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBT! Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I enjoyed those days under Margaret Thatcher. That's what Denis said! T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yeah.... Sorry... I could see that I might have miscommunicated! The system does work but I genuinely feel that on the occasion I mentioned the jury was there for show.....why bother with the hypocrisy & cost when the judge had already judged. As for the basketball-player......I guess it's all been said but you get my point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Aha! I see now. I had it backwards, and now the whole thing makes sense. Or as much sense as it will ever make, at least. Edited September 16, 2009 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.