Jury Duty

[PrairieSpyder]

You know a place where they do that?

/sarc

Arabia

 

[Yazz]

Joy,
I understand that mistakes are made... but it seems crazy to let the entire system of justice be run by the fear of such a tragedy...

Let the criminals live in fear of a system that WILL delver swift, severe, and certain justice!
Then, we won't have to worry about these things.

Bob,
The justice department isn't ruled by fear of a wrongful conviction. That's what appeals are for.

When I was young, Dad took me to hunter safety school. He thought I would be his hunting buddy and he could get more deer licenses. I grew up on venison, love it! Still like shooting guns too. But I can't pull the trigger and turn a deer into venison. It's not in my nature.

If an animal is wounded or suffering, or in self defense, then it's easy for me to shoot.

There are enough people around who feel as you do, and those are the people who should be a jurist in a manslaughter case where a death sentence is involved. Not me...

 

[Blue Star]

True story

Earlier this year I was called for jury duty, and when asked what my occupation was I told them. I work in a warehouse, and drive part-time for Uber. Needless to say since it was a DUI case they let me go. I guess I should have not told the truth.

PS. I enjoy jury duty, find it interesting, and get paid for all time from work.

 

[PrairieSpyder]

. . .

Sentencing a person to death on the words of a lawyer is something I couldn't stomach.

Joy,
I understand that mistakes are made... but it seems crazy to let the entire system of justice be run by the fear of such a tragedy...

Let the criminals live in fear of a system that WILL delver swift, severe, and certain justice!
Then, we won't have to worry about these things.

You know a place where they do that?

/sarc

Arabia

I wasn't sure if I should weigh in to this topic, but here goes. . . . . I'm actually kind of ambivalent about the death penalty, partly for the reasons Yazz cited. It's an extreme measure that can't be corrected. I mourn for the souls of the people executed who haven't come to know the Lord. Causing their deaths forestalls that opportunity for them. (That's as much religion as you'll get from me here.)

But Bob is right that in order to punishment to be a deterrent it must be swift and sure. When children are punished immediately when they misbehave, they understand there are certain consequences from their behavior. But if a parent equivocates about whether to punish them, or makes it conditional, the child will learn to "play the system" and make the calculation of the odds of punishment. Instead of teaching him to behave, he's learned to manipulate.

I cited Arabia because it was the first thing that came to mind when I Trbayth's question. I wouldn't want to live in their system, but mainly because they have unjust (IMO) laws and their punishments are just cruel. But within the context of what is illegal there, I'll bet they don't have a lot of folks thinking about starting a criminal career.

So IMO we should try to shorten the appeals process so we can get closer to the swift and sure punishment as a crime deterrent.

 

[Bob Denman]

Amen... :thumbup:

 

[Trbayth]

I cited Arabia because it was the first thing that came to mind when I Trbayth's question. I wouldn't want to live in their system, but mainly because they have unjust (IMO) laws and their punishments are just cruel. But within the context of what is illegal there, I'll bet they don't have a lot of folks thinking about starting a criminal career.

Good point Patti and one I'm sad to say I didn't think of. The flip side of swift and sure justice is the rights and protections our Constitution provides. Without them, it's a dictatorship or worse.

 

[vided]

Good point Patti and one I'm sad to say I didn't think of. The flip side of swift and sure justice is the rights and protections our Constitution provides. Without them, it's a dictatorship or worse.

+2 :agree:
some are finding the Constitution very inconvenient and annoying :yikes::yikes:

 

[USAFE7RET]

I would be supportive of a professional juror. One who is paid to sit on juries and wants to see that justice is served for all parties involved. As it is now, finding 12 random people who would sit in judgement on me causes me grave concern. Like the old saying, I don't want to trust my life to 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I would be very doubtful of that "jury of your peers" idea.

Pay someone $60K per year with benefits and then have at it.

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

:shocked: I was waiting for this to pop-up in the thread...
If a criminal does something so horrible; you're not the one sentencing them to death: they are.
We all have an innate sense of what Society's rules are. If you violate those rules; sanctions are necessary.
Their own actions, sealed their fate. nojoke
I could do it in a heartbeat, and then pull the trigger on them myself...

remember death is natural, imprisonment is something man created

 

[Cruzr Joe]

I don't hunt because i have no desire to shoot an animal, I know that it is vital to their existence in many cases for their numbers to be controlled. During my Law Enforcement days it was necessary to shoot some wounded animals, i did not like it but knew it was necessary to prevent any further misery for the animal. I have no ill feelings towards hunters, they actually do a lot of good. I would not have a problem with the death penalty when it is necessary and as a juror could sentence someone to die in the proper situation.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and a few savvy folks) will have guns.

Cruzr Joe

 

[Trbayth]

I would be supportive of a professional juror. One who is paid to sit on juries and wants to see that justice is served for all parties involved. As it is now, finding 12 random people who would sit in judgement on me causes me grave concern. Like the old saying, I don't want to trust my life to 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I would be very doubtful of that "jury of your peers" idea.

Pay someone $60K per year with benefits and then have at it.

I'm very leery of setting up something permanent like this, unless there were some sort of term limits in place.

Remember, the founding fathers originally envisioned public service as something someone did for a few years tops then went back to their private lives as farmers, teachers, etc. Now we have professional politicians.

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree: Once you know who the professional jurists are: you know who to bribe... nojoke

 

[PrairieSpyder]

I would be supportive of a professional juror. One who is paid to sit on juries and wants to see that justice is served for all parties involved. As it is now, finding 12 random people who would sit in judgement on me causes me grave concern. Like the old saying, I don't want to trust my life to 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I would be very doubtful of that "jury of your peers" idea.

Pay someone $60K per year with benefits and then have at it.

I'd rather be judged by 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty than 12 government employees! :yikes:

 

[Bob Denman]

I'd rather be judged by 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty than 12 government employees! :yikes:

:shocked: I think that :agree: :shocked:

But it's got to be tough to tell which group of people is smarter... :dontknow:

(Okay: Maybe just "less stupid!" :roflblack

 

[PrairieSpyder]

:shocked: I think that :agree: :shocked:

But it's got to be tough to tell which group of people is smarter... :dontknow:

(Okay: Maybe just "less stupid!" :roflblack

I'm not so concerned about "smarter" than about all the worst stereotypes of government employment.

 

[Bob Denman]

:shocked: Okay... :agree: