I understand that we have a trial by peers, but why would you want someone listening to your case who probably won't pay attention, won't care, and while doze off? We should establish a system where people volunteer for jury duty. Don't say people wouldn't do that, because people volunteer for the army, so why not this? Having a jail sentence for not complying with being FORCED to do something seems hypocritical to the American government way. Just an opinion.
2007-10-23
17:32:30
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Civic Participation
Why do you want people that don't have an interest? How would that corrupt anything. Their interest would be to make sure the right decision is made. There would be a questionnaire for this volunteer thing, by the way.
2007-10-23
17:40:34 ·
update #1
You people are missing the point..
I said to establish a new system. I even DESCRIBED the new system. Please read carefully.
2007-10-23
17:44:47 ·
update #2
I don't believe in Jury duty either and I'm sick and tired of hearing it is my civic duty. Civic duty my azz. And while the pay me $5 dollars a day who is supposed to pay my bills. I also don't believe in our so called fake azz court system. Judges are as bad as politicians all they care about are how fat their pocket's can get. And who is to say our peers are the best source to judge anyone. The person judging you could be the azz that cut you off on the road and cursed you out. I for one would not want to serve on jury duty, and I always right in an excuse to get out of it and I always will. I don't believe in the court system and I never will.
2007-10-24 08:13:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Simple answer -- you have the right to a trial by jury -- and as a consequence of that right, you also have an obligation -- to sit on a jury for someone else's trial.
Your idea of volunteer is a good idea in theory -- in practice, not enough people would volunteer -- and many who do would not be suited for the jury because of the requirement that they jury be impartial (as much as humanly possible). So, like when the military is short -- there is a draft.
2007-10-24 00:47:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
it's part of how the adversarial system works. if people did not want to serve on juries, those people who volunteered for juries, would have so much power in the courts, the system would become corrupted due lack of people to volunteering. you need a bigger sampling of your peers, that's all there is to it. they do need to increase the pay though because that does suck
2007-10-24 15:29:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by rebel with a cause 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can not state that volunteers do so in order to ensure the right verdict. A volunteer can have any motivation. ranging from sadism to anarchy.
I agree that jurors should not be seated if they cannot be brought to care. The jury selection process is where those people who are summoned but don't wish to serve, can weed themselves out.
2007-10-24 03:47:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by and_y_knot 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't like jury duty either and its a pain, but the system has to work somehow and if its you at trial, you would be glad to have a jury.
2007-10-24 00:42:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mike N. 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
One thing I have learned in my later years is that the government only cares about one thing in the end, and that is..........the government. They need the jury system to rubber stamp the police and the prosecution's judgements against individuals, and they need you the jury to lend a (false) air of legitimacy and fairness to the system. People seem to think that a jury verdict is more fair, and therefore more just, when in reality the whole system is in cahoots with one another, and the whole system is so manipulated by the power players. The judges and the prosecutors are in bed with each other every night.......should I go on? They have to force you into jury duty, and they wouldn't think of changing it to suit the public. Their needs and priorities are always more important than your needs and priorities. Changing it to suit the public might destroy the (fake) air of fairness that they so desperately need. I think Mark Twain said it best: Unlike Britain and France, the U.S. has no native endemic criminal class.........except maybe Congress.
2007-10-24 00:51:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sciencenut 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
We want people that don't have an interest.
By definition volunteers have an interest.
I could volunteer to make sure that people I don't like never get off.
Poor system.
2007-10-24 00:38:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
its not our responsibility they trying to make us feel good thinking that we are helping but on the other hand all we are is #to the government no respect for your name your ss# is all we are to them because when it comes to pay your taxes all they ask is whats your ss# iv'e been to jury duty $5 dollars a day while i to miss work and feed 3 kids that day and missed my $60 that day is that fair to us .no .no .no . they alleady know. they dont need us to get rid of scum on the streets.......maybe its the goverment selling drugs to our kids if they are so powerfull they could stop drugs in a jiffy lube why are our kids on drugs because the goverment makes possible . thats why we suffer day in and day out ..theres nothing else to say rich people poor people the ones in between usually work 7 days week .....the list goes on and on but its us people that puts them to power by joining the army so its us people pions . why is your son cant drink a glass of wine with your parants but he can hold a m16 fire arm at the army headquaters with the general......thats all for now .
2007-10-24 02:11:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by mike p 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Its not YOUR responsibility......its OURS.
We all just have to take turns.
2007-10-24 00:41:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by HarleyD 3
·
1⤊
0⤋