I concur.
I served on a jury in a civil case mayby 20 years ago and thought that the system, including the jury, did its job.
I served on a jury a few years ago in a DUI case and came away with a jaded view of the lawyers (both prosecutor and defending lawyers), the police, and the judge. I followed the 'law' and found the defendant guilty. I've felt I didn't quite do the right thing ever since.
The farce our government has played on us, which has crystalized since Bush, has resulted in my decision to be ruled by my conscience alone if I am ever selected for another jury.
I assume I will not be selected.
Posted by Gail at July 7, 2007 10:11 AMWhy miss the fun? You won't get to see the Libby Defense in action.
With The Mad King, idiot son of George, and the Dali Lama sharing a birthday, I think the Libby Defense is a fitting bit of karma. With his pretzledential actions, karma indicates The Mad King should be expecting hemorrhoids the size of grapefruit.
Posted by phidipides at July 7, 2007 10:30 AMIt's a funny thing: After dwelling upon "Jury Duty" as a form of involuntary servitude for literally years, I finally came to terms with it. This was the final stumbling block prior to becoming a naturalized citizen last June 22nd. I've been thinking about it for 45 of the last 50 years of my life. Bush43 convinced me to take up the question again because here was the ultimate horrible price of political ennui.
What took so long was the realization that it is not service to the "system" but service to each other. Who would you have in the jury box if you were in the same straights as Jose Padilla? A person like yourself or me or would you prefer to have a professional jury system, paid to sit in judgement? Paid by who?
Your real rant is not so much against the system of justice but of justice gone astray such as Jose Padilla, I. Scooter Libby, Enron, wiretaps and you greatly fear the chipping away of the independence of the DOJ.
I do not believe any of the current crop of presidential candidates will want to rebuild that foundation. They'll just plaster over it, ready to rip it down at any moment of political dificulty.
The Next Hurrah website has a post up. It appears Team Libby is contemplating a run at dismissing Libby's PROBATION too--at least that is the implication of what I read.
Wasn't it only a few days ago Judge Walton said commuting a sentence before any time was served did not fit within the legal definition of commutation? Okay, I am not a lawyer--but I did get that Judge Walton did not like having all his deliberation over sentencing trashed by the White House---that I got!
Posted by gtash at July 7, 2007 11:03 AMBush vs. Gore cemented the demise of America’s judicial system
Bush v. Gore marked the day Americans realized elections could be stolen by 5 banana Republicans wearing black robes on the US Supreme Court.
What American institution is left to trust? None come to mind. We're a nation adrift.
Posted by Christopher at July 7, 2007 11:31 AMDon't tell my about jurors and the 'system.' I won a case and was awarded $150,000.00, but I should have won a $500,000.00 judgement, which is what my attorney asked for. The jurors were stupid (as evidenced in the conversation after the verdict), and certainly not my peers.
I refused Jury Duty the last time I was called. I feel no obligation to sit on any jury now or ever. My attorney friend always tells me that lawyers are not looking for anyone intelligent to be on a jury, so I should be safe from jury selection. I'm not taking the chance. They want jurors, call the twelve who rendered my verdict.
Posted by Judith at July 7, 2007 11:37 AM"Something snapped in me this morning..." -(Paradox)
-The point is to keep it 'snapped.' Your perception into what America is will proceed with a greater degree of accuracy.
It may also help to understand that these atrocities are not recent or strictly incumbent on the arrival of the Cheney junta: They are structurally endemic in the totality of American life itself; they are not episodic, brief mutations, which will revert to a benign norm: There never has been a beneficent norm nor can there be. America is a death state locked in a macabre, permanent stasis.
Many intelligent folk have these insights, but ever so briefly, as their silly belief in American institutions always relapse into a sordid, murderously sentimental vision of "America the good."
The point is to see the unfailing darkness and not fall back into a spurious light: There is no light. May your future analysis proceed from there.
Why is this so difficult to see?
The evidence is overwhelming.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 7, 2007 12:03 PMA more effective form of protest is "jury nullification." Simply refuse to convict - even the playing field between the haves and have nots.
Posted by Marie at July 7, 2007 12:37 PMThat jury nullification thing sure worked out well in the OJ case.
I have a jury notification sitting on my table. Is it OK if I staple a copy of your article to it and send it in?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 7, 2007 02:15 PMThe only reason to be on a jury is exercise "jury nullification". I hope one day to be put on a jury that hears a drug case. Not guilty I say!
Posted by Gareth G at July 7, 2007 02:19 PMMarie, great idea. Leveling the playing field. We should say that convicting anyone of anything will happen when the criminals in the WH are convicted. Until then, 'hung jury.'
Posted by Judith at July 7, 2007 04:39 PMjill bains-you are a cynic of the 1st order-BRAVO& tell me more ? i am also using a jury duty questionaire as a placemat and i will return it w/ avid relish(also mustard& coffeee stains).....i want to participate in the worst way-No other......the only thing that surprises me anymore is our ability to be constantly outraged by the same old shit
Posted by tommy Hagelund at July 7, 2007 04:43 PMTIKI Al - IMHO it wasn't jury nullification in the OJ case. The prosecution was dreadful and the defense very good. Had that been reversed, odds are very good that it would have been a hung jury -- and that would have been jury nullification.
Posted by Marie at July 8, 2007 04:42 PMThe American jury system is a pathetic failure by any reasonable measure. It's accuracy rate is only slightly better than random.
Opting out of such a system is a sane decision.
Posted by Just one more little mint at July 8, 2007 08:41 PMI was recently called in for jury duty. It was a sex abuse case of some kind and they spent three days seating a jury.
I was astonished when the judge told prospective jurors that, under california law, the testimony of a single witness, without any other evidence whatsoever, was sufficient to convict in sex abuse cases.
This upset me immensely. To think that extremely serious cases like this could be decided by a he said/she said popularity contest. This did not seem to bother any of the other people there however. It's like some kind of fasttrack "justice". How can you send someone to jail for the best part of their life based on the testimony of a single person, who could be lying or confused or forgetful or prejudiced? Studies have shown that people, for the most part, make really lousy eye-witnesses.
In the end I was excused after stating very forcefully that I would not agree up front to follow this law. But first the Judge and the prosecuting attorney made sure to mock and scorn me.
Posted by Binko at July 9, 2007 05:43 PM