Jury Duty is total bs... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Jury Duty is total bs...

Tommy_Vercetti
04-04-2011, 03:05 AM
Got another summons. So sick of this crap. I might ignore it and just take my chances and maybe get fined or even arrested over it. Then at least I'll never have to do it again.

buddyholly
04-04-2011, 03:29 AM
What would happen if everyone shared your attitude?

Johnny Groove
04-04-2011, 03:35 AM
You just have to go in there and be a pain to the prosecution. Show knowledge of the situation, ask questions.

The point of jury duty is to have a bunch of random people be easily influenced. If you show you are not that easy to influence, they will get rid of you.

Or just be a total racist prick like you are here. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Either way, it is better to do this than get arrested or fined, you gotta pay $, it is just a big hassle.

Tommy_Vercetti
04-04-2011, 03:37 AM
What would happen if everyone shared your attitude?

They would get rid of the ridiculous jury system in the first place. I never get picked to serve, but I have to go through the summons and interview bs like every six months it seems. I have to explain to them every time that the jury by peers system is deeply flawed and that I don't believe in it. So I never get picked, but I still have to go down here to sit all day and reschedule stuff all the time.

It's the glaring example of everything wrong with the system. Harassing and threatening people who aren't criminals with big fines and jail time to force them to do jury duty.

Macbrother
04-04-2011, 06:18 AM
They would get rid of the ridiculous jury system in the first place. I never get picked to serve, but I have to go through the summons and interview bs like every six months it seems. I have to explain to them every time that the jury by peers system is deeply flawed and that I don't believe in it. So I never get picked, but I still have to go down here to sit all day and reschedule stuff all the time.

It's the glaring example of everything wrong with the system. Harassing and threatening people who aren't criminals with big fines and jail time to force them to do jury duty.

So what do we do, have 3 old white men decide everything?

And that's funny, I've never been called for duty.

Tommy_Vercetti
04-04-2011, 06:26 AM
In many cases, yes.

I favor every case being put in front of judges who actually understand the laws, know how to properly examine evidence and are not going to be tricked and manipulated by some big money sleazy scumbag defense lawyer or lock someone up for having an incompetent public defender. Instead of the system now, which is forcing random people to show up with no understanding of the law and then choose the most ignorant to decide if a person is guilty or not.

Seingeist
04-04-2011, 06:30 AM
What would happen if everyone shared your attitude?

Don't even bother, buddyholly. ;)

You can't possibly expect a poster like Vercetti to have the requisite comprehension or maturity to appreciate the pragmatic and philosophical underpinnings of a peer-jury based judicial system.

He is a more-or-less typical representative of the thoughtless, hedonistic nihilism that has unfortunately come to characterize our generation (mine and Vercetti's).

Tommy_Vercetti
04-04-2011, 06:34 AM
You can't possibly expect a poster like Vercetti to have the requisite comprehension or maturity to appreciate the pragmatic and philosophical underpinnings of a peer-jury based judicial system.

Right. Forgive me for not comprehending the logic behind choosing twelve random people off the street with no legal background (the dumber the better) and forcing them to appear as the judges of a criminal case. These people know that the longer they deliberate, the more their lives are interrupted. It's always the most outgoing and pushy person in any jury that convinces everyone of how to vote because most just want to get it over with and not bother arguing.

It's far more financially prudent, timely and pragmatic than having professional, highly educated and experienced judges decide each case and not let a person's guilt or innocence be decided by how good of a lawyer they have or how good of a prosecutor was assigned to the case.

You're the one who lacks any kind of realistic perception of the world. The jury system and forcing people to serve is a joke.

Johnny Groove
04-04-2011, 07:25 AM
In many cases, yes.

I favor every case being put in front of judges who actually understand the laws, know how to properly examine evidence and are not going to be tricked and manipulated by some big money sleazy scumbag defense lawyer or lock someone up for having an incompetent public defender. Instead of the system now, which is forcing random people to show up with no understanding of the law and then choose the most ignorant to decide if a person is guilty or not.

Well this I agree with.

krystlel
04-04-2011, 07:41 AM
Is there a way to get out of it?

Here in Australia, almost everyone can get around doing it by getting their employer to sign that they have to work that day. The percentage of people that go is very low.

I decided to go myself though, because I don't think having to work is a valid excuse at all - and I don't like the idea of so many people not doing it!

Tommy_Vercetti
04-04-2011, 07:45 AM
Yes, you can get out of actually having to serve by convincing them that you are unfit or unwilling to sit on a jury.

However, as I have learned, it's virtually impossible to avoid the summons process and wasting a day sitting around waiting to have to explain why you don't want to sit on the jury. It's just a total pain in the ass, especially for someone like myself who hates the jury system.

orangehat
04-04-2011, 08:08 AM
The end of the world is near.

I agree with Tommy Vercetti over something :o

jmf07
04-04-2011, 08:12 AM
You know there is something messed up when they are calling up ACC Superstars to do jury duty.

fast_clay
04-04-2011, 09:15 AM
:haha:

buddyholly
04-04-2011, 12:38 PM
I wish I would get called. I want to see the system at work. Maybe they could limit it to just retired people.

Mondays: Bridge
Tuesdays: Jury duty
Wednesday: Doctor visit
Thursday: Bridge
Friday: At leisure

Johnny Groove
04-04-2011, 12:48 PM
I shudder to think of a jury filled with MTF's finest with myself as Judge.

Would be very entertaining.

JolánGagó
04-04-2011, 01:06 PM
Jury system is monkey shit.

Everko
04-04-2011, 03:46 PM
I shudder to think of a jury filled with MTF's finest with myself as Judge.

Would be very entertaining.

o yourself as judge of course

Tommy_Vercetti
04-04-2011, 10:21 PM
Talking it over with some cops I know, I decided not to ignore the summons and just filled it out with crayons and misspelled a bunch of words.

If I have to go down there again, I'm really going to get pissed off this time.

fast_clay
04-05-2011, 03:25 AM
I decided not to ignore the summons and just filled it out with crayons and misspelled a bunch of words.


i have to remember that next time i need to piss on some bureaucrat

Goldenoldie
04-05-2011, 08:10 AM
I have never been called for jury service and in another 3 years I will no longer be eligible because of my age.

I am possibly one of the few people who would actually like to go!

Yes there is plenty wrong with the system in the UK (I have no knowledge of other countries except the bits that come through on TV), but I think it's better for major crimes than the alternative.

Bolar Bolabi
04-05-2011, 09:42 AM
Bolar has never been summoned.

In anycase, in Australia apparently if you rock up there on the day in a suit they will send you home.

For Women, just dress up like Queen Elizabeth.

Bolar Bolabi
04-05-2011, 09:43 AM
I shudder to think of a jury filled with MTF's finest with myself as Judge.

Would be very entertaining.

I'll be the defence lawyer.

krystlel
04-05-2011, 10:41 AM
Bolar has never been summoned.

In anycase, in Australia apparently if you rock up there on the day in a suit they will send you home.

For Women, just dress up like Queen Elizabeth.
Well, you don't necessarily end up on the panel if you get summoned.

I'd say it's probably very easy to dress in a way to get rejected. Anything that looks silly should do the trick. They have the right to reject anyone's name that gets called up.

Bolar Bolabi
04-05-2011, 11:06 AM
Yeah that's what I meant. If you get summoned, just make sure when you show up that there is no way they will call upon you.

Tommy_Vercetti
04-05-2011, 03:56 PM
It's supposed to be random, but I know that's complete nonsense. People I know have never been called in decades while I get a summons at least once a year. It has to have something to do with me pissing off someone when I explained why I don't like the jury system and my low opinion of defense lawyers. Just because someone has a right to a lawyer, doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to defend them. I've went off a couple of times about how you have to be real scum to defend a child molester and the like. That's why I know it can't be random, someone at the circuit court is doing it to piss me off.

JolánGagó
04-05-2011, 04:12 PM
sue them.

Tommy_Vercetti
04-05-2011, 04:30 PM
I hate going to the courts for anything. Regardless, it would be very hard to prove it and I don't want the headache. As much as the summons' piss me off.

But maybe I should call the office and quote Tony Soprano: "I'm not a litigious person. I prefer to resolve things directly, but this time I'll sue!"

tangerine_dream
04-06-2011, 05:48 PM
You just have to go in there and be a pain to the prosecution. Or just be a total racist prick like you are here. Shouldn't be too difficult.

That could backfire:

Judge Sentences "Racist" Juror To Indefinite Jury Duty. (http://gothamist.com/2011/04/06/judge_sentences_racist_juror_to_ind.php)

Seingeist
04-06-2011, 06:03 PM
Right. Forgive me for not comprehending the logic behind choosing twelve random people off the street with no legal background (the dumber the better) and forcing them to appear as the judges of a criminal case.

This "logic" that you find so incomprehensible is the very same that underlies our entire democratic system of government: government belongs in the hands of the people. The citizens are ultimately responsible for the formation and enforcement of laws and the way that the justice system operates.

Because of the vast population of America (and most other developed democratic societies) , we are forced to adopt a representative form of democracy, wherein we delegate certain essential functions of our citizenship to individuals that we elect in order to represent our civic interests (local and national Congressmen, governors, the President, etc.) Unfortunately, when we "delegate" our civic duties in this manner, however unavoidable this delegation may be, a gap is created between the citizenship and the State, and the interests of the former are not always reflected as thoroughly as they should be in the latter. Moreover, this "gap" leaves room for the introduction of all manner of corruption and waste, which can alienate the interests of the citizens even further. Rousseau took this potential downfall very seriously, and went as far as asserting that the civic duties of a citizen cannot be delegated, and that a representative democracy basically ceases to be a democracy.

Ironic, then, that you would complain about one of the precious few areas left in our government that is not delegated to elected representatives, but actually does involve a decision that comes directly from the citizens. Ideally, citizens should be able to affect our government directly in many more ways, not fewer. The more that you "delegate" your duties away, the less of a true "democracy" the nation becomes.

These people know that the longer they deliberate, the more their lives are interrupted. It's always the most outgoing and pushy person in any jury that convinces everyone of how to vote because most just want to get it over with and not bother arguing.

When we talk about civic duties, how responsible each citizen takes his duties is up to him. If the jurors think so little of justice and individual rights that they don't care what happens to the accused one way or the other, then justice is already completely f@#$ed in this country (because the people in whose hands justice ultimately belongs--the citizens--do not care about it enough to take it seriously).

In any case, though, your generalization is sloppy and overhasty. The above scenario is emphatically not always the case, nor even usually the case. I think that you know this already.

It's far more financially prudent, timely and pragmatic than having professional, highly educated and experienced judges decide each case and not let a person's guilt or innocence be decided by how good of a lawyer they have or how good of a prosecutor was assigned to the case.

And so emerges the ugly head of elitism, the enemy of democracy. The basic idea is that "the people" are too stupid, lazy, or worthless to govern themselves, and that they should therefore be governed by (that is, their civic duties be delegated to) "highly educated" professionals who will serve as their stand-in. Nevermind that such delegation only opens the door for more corruption. Nevermind that many of the most ruthless and unjust individuals in history have been "highly educated and experienced." Nevermind that the entire notion of democracy itself is predicated on the dignity of the common man and his right and ability to govern himself. Nevermind that a sense of "justice" has little to do with the level of one's education or experience. All of these considerations must be thrown out the window because the Vercettis of this world are too lazy and apathetic to be bothered.

The frightening thing is that I see no reason, by your thinking, to stop at jury duty. Surely these same uncaring, uneducated masses who are too incompetent to handly jury duty properly cannot be trusted to have a say in the leaders that are supposed to represent their interests. The citizens would be better off if all of their government-related decisions were made for them by "highly educated and experienced professionals." This is an argument for some kind of oligarchy or dictatorship, surely. And not an "elective" one, either; after all, how can the citizens be "educated" enough to elect the proper leaders? If they're so easily swayed by cunning lawyers, they will be similarly swayed by anyone seeking to be elected by them.

You're the one who lacks any kind of realistic perception of the world. The jury system and forcing people to serve is a joke.

The only "joke" here is the laziness and thoughtlessness of your attitude, and it's not a funny one. As I was complaining above, it's all-too-common in our generation, and attitudes like yours, as buddy holly seemed to be hinting above, would thoroughly destroy our nation.

Tommy_Vercetti
04-06-2011, 08:59 PM
*Yawn*

I don't know why you typed all that out and didn't just link some paranoid website.

It boils down to the fact that picking twelve random people with no understanding of the law and specifically those who will be most swayed by a lawyer and not the law is utter nonsense. Whatever your fears of the cigarette smoking man and the evil government operatives, I'm tired of all the cost and time being consumed by the judicial bureaucracy. And that's the proper name, it shouldn't be called a judicial system.

And yes, since you brought it up. I do favor a benevolent dictatorship. As opposed to having two or more political parties who seek to hurt the nation in order to hurt their political opponents. The people on the right who don't want the economy to improve because Obama will be given credit for it (wrongly) and the entire DNC leadership that wanted things to go badly in Iraq and spent the entire 2004 election doing everything they could to destroy the economy for political gain.

You are right. The jury system is just the beginning of the problem.

ibreak4coffee
04-06-2011, 10:20 PM
*Yawn*

I don't know why you typed all that out and didn't just link some paranoid website.

It boils down to the fact that picking twelve random people with no understanding of the law and specifically those who will be most swayed by a lawyer and not the law is utter nonsense. Whatever your fears of the cigarette smoking man and the evil government operatives, I'm tired of all the cost and time being consumed by the judicial bureaucracy. And that's the proper name, it shouldn't be called a judicial system.

And yes, since you brought it up. I do favor a benevolent dictatorship. As opposed to having two or more political parties who seek to hurt the nation in order to hurt their political opponents. The people on the right who don't want the economy to improve because Obama will be given credit for it (wrongly) and the entire DNC leadership that wanted things to go badly in Iraq and spent the entire 2004 election doing everything they could to destroy the economy for political gain.

You are right. The jury system is just the beginning of the problem.

Its all about Tommy Vercetti - and no one else - we get it.

Can we close this pointless thread?

Tommy_Vercetti
04-06-2011, 10:44 PM
I do love putting people in their place and embittering them. It's is surprisingly fun. Yes, if you feel you must.

Henry Chinaski
04-07-2011, 01:23 AM
still giggling to myself picturing the form filled in with crayons and badly spelled words

orangehat
04-07-2011, 03:11 AM
This "logic" that you find so incomprehensible is the very same that underlies our entire democratic system of government: government belongs in the hands of the people. The citizens are ultimately responsible for the formation and enforcement of laws and the way that the justice system operates.

Because of the vast population of America (and most other developed democratic societies) , we are forced to adopt a representative form of democracy, wherein we delegate certain essential functions of our citizenship to individuals that we elect in order to represent our civic interests (local and national Congressmen, governors, the President, etc.) Unfortunately, when we "delegate" our civic duties in this manner, however unavoidable this delegation may be, a gap is created between the citizenship and the State, and the interests of the former are not always reflected as thoroughly as they should be in the latter. Moreover, this "gap" leaves room for the introduction of all manner of corruption and waste, which can alienate the interests of the citizens even further. Rousseau took this potential downfall very seriously, and went as far as asserting that the civic duties of a citizen cannot be delegated, and that a representative democracy basically ceases to be a democracy.

Ironic, then, that you would complain about one of the precious few areas left in our government that is not delegated to elected representatives, but actually does involve a decision that comes directly from the citizens. Ideally, citizens should be able to affect our government directly in many more ways, not fewer. The more that you "delegate" your duties away, the less of a true "democracy" the nation becomes.

When we talk about civic duties, how responsible each citizen takes his duties is up to him. If the jurors think so little of justice and individual rights that they don't care what happens to the accused one way or the other, then justice is already completely f@#$ed in this country (because the people in whose hands justice ultimately belongs--the citizens--do not care about it enough to take it seriously).

In any case, though, your generalization is sloppy and overhasty. The above scenario is emphatically not always the case, nor even usually the case. I think that you know this already.

And so emerges the ugly head of elitism, the enemy of democracy. The basic idea is that "the people" are too stupid, lazy, or worthless to govern themselves, and that they should therefore be governed by (that is, their civic duties be delegated to) "highly educated" professionals who will serve as their stand-in. Nevermind that such delegation only opens the door for more corruption. Nevermind that many of the most ruthless and unjust individuals in history have been "highly educated and experienced." Nevermind that the entire notion of democracy itself is predicated on the dignity of the common man and his right and ability to govern himself. Nevermind that a sense of "justice" has little to do with the level of one's education or experience. All of these considerations must be thrown out the window because the Vercettis of this world are too lazy and apathetic to be bothered.

The frightening thing is that I see no reason, by your thinking, to stop at jury duty. Surely these same uncaring, uneducated masses who are too incompetent to handly jury duty properly cannot be trusted to have a say in the leaders that are supposed to represent their interests. The citizens would be better off if all of their government-related decisions were made for them by "highly educated and experienced professionals." This is an argument for some kind of oligarchy or dictatorship, surely. And not an "elective" one, either; after all, how can the citizens be "educated" enough to elect the proper leaders? If they're so easily swayed by cunning lawyers, they will be similarly swayed by anyone seeking to be elected by them.

The only "joke" here is the laziness and thoughtlessness of your attitude, and it's not a funny one. As I was complaining above, it's all-too-common in our generation, and attitudes like yours, as buddy holly seemed to be hinting above, would thoroughly destroy our nation.

Well you raise many good points(about elitism, the apathy of this generation and representative democracy) but I'm going to have to disagree in this particular case.

(I'm not very familiar with the jury system because where I live they don't use the jury system here so if I make any errors of assumption please do point them out.)

Firstly, it is purely inefficient from an economic viewpoint to have a jury. The process is so complicated and involves so many people and man hours that could be better spent simply by only having a full-time panel of judges.

Secondly, I believe juries shouldn't be allowed to trial cases where a criminal offense is involved. Put simply, I don't want the verdict given to an accused criminal to be based on people who are highly inexperienced. This doesn't even consider the fact that people on the jury are more likely to be affected by emotional appeal. (even though attorneys are not supposed to use such tactics) After all, how effective is "Objection sustained. Jury will disregard."? What's said has been said and you can't just simply "disregard" such things. So forgive me if I think the jury will make a terrible decision and leave a criminal on the streets. After all, the judge can't overrule a decision favourable to the defendant (if I am not mistaken)

Which brings me to my last point. Yes, I agree with you, I really despise elitism. (even though the country I live in practices it blatantly and unapologetically and I would be considered an "elite" here). But I don't agree that having a panel of qualified judges constitutes "elitism". I believe everyone wants a professional system and a professional system is only going to be professional if it is judged by professionals. If you fear corruption, I believe you can always appeal to the upper courts, so that really isn't a major factor.


And yes, since you brought it up. I do favor a benevolent dictatorship. As opposed to having two or more political parties who seek to hurt the nation in order to hurt their political opponents. The people on the right who don't want the economy to improve because Obama will be given credit for it (wrongly) and the entire DNC leadership that wanted things to go badly in Iraq and spent the entire 2004 election doing everything they could to destroy the economy for political gain.

You are right. The jury system is just the beginning of the problem.

Living in a country where the government is widely considered to be a benevolent dictatorship, I can tell you their economic "success" isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Essentially: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Despite huge economic growth in the last 20 years, Singapore's middle to lower income groups have actually seen their real income shrink. This is due to this "benevolent dictatorship" refusing to implement a minimum wage and the fact that this "benevolent dictatorship" believes practising elitism is paramount to Singapore's success (even though they don't say it directly, but everyone knows what they really mean). Just look at their salaries. Singapore's Prime Minister earns 5 times what Obama is earning every year. Even some ordinary minister probably earns more than Obama.

If you are rich, sure you'll do well here. But if you aren't, you'll be screaming for this "benevolent dictatorship" to get away.

Let me show you how ridiculous things have become.

The four-room government housing apartment with area about 950-1000 sq ft. (about 60-70% of Singaporean residents live in government housing) my parents bought 10 years ago was priced $265,000. Today, this price would be about $450,000 to $480,000. Basically prices have almost doubled in 10 years. (Income for the middle and lower income residents have increased by maybe 35-45% in this 10 years) Remember, this is Government housing. Private property apartments? you can't get them for anything below the million dollar mark, and usually they are even smaller than government housing.

Tommy_Vercetti
04-07-2011, 04:45 AM
Yes, but what the average standard of life in the rest of Southeast Asia compared to Singapore? Which is one of favorite countries because they cane people for being scum. Although, Singapore would certainly not be my model of a benevolent dictatorship. They practice far too many intrusive totalitarian measures to be considered benevolent. Gun ownership for instance should be considered a universal right, as well as the right to use drugs, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, gay rights, religion, etc...

A benevolent dictatorship would stay out of the personal life and only be concerned about people who are trying to hurt the state. I'll give you an example: The muslims in Britain who actually believe they should have their own police force and be able to institute Sharia law. They should be put up against a wall. No doubt about it.

theMEESH
04-07-2011, 05:50 PM
I always wanted to do jury duty. But I got my first summons this year... during the first week of IW. :sobbing: Needless to say, I was bitter.

But I thought you only had to go through the process every 12 months? You should be able to get out of it if it's only been 6 months, unless one was county and one was... federal or state? I can't remember what it was.

When I finally was called in to go to the court and given a courtroom, the judge came into the jury assembly room and told us the case was already settled. I was sad.

But hey, I don't have to do jury duty for another 12 months! Yay!

I wouldn't mind being a professional juror lol. Although I guess people are against this.