| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 11:13:53 AM · #301 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
Originally posted by raish:
Next time if ever I'm dragged up in front of the judiciary, I want people like Julianne on the jury. |
yes, me too.
but Julianne, I don't understand, can't you say no thank you to this? if you don't want to or don't have time? sorry, I don't know anything about this. |
Svetlana: that's what I was getting at.
In the US, there's a civic duty to serve on juries. Our justice system is built around people being judged by their "peers," meaning other people in the community. The idea is that they're initially randomly chosen, then winnowed out to get rid of biases, preconceptions, people who know the folks involved, etc.
Our justice system is far from perfect, and there are genuine times when it really will hurt people to serve on juries (Kelli's is a good example). But I see it as extremely unfortunate that many people see it purely as a burden, as opposed to being their responsibility and a way to contribute to our society, so they look for ways to get out of it.
I mean, EVERYONE is busy. Or should we only put people without jobs or families, or any other responsibilities, on juries?
Then again, only half or less of the people eligible to vote in the US can be bothered to carry out that duty, either. :/
Are there juries in Norway and Russia? How are they chosen?
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 11:15:14.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:39:46 AM · #302 |
hmmm. I don't like it. I understand the idea of a civic duty and that everyone's busy, but I want to be busy with either what is interesting for me or what I get (well) paid for. everything else is a burden. sorry, it's just me.
why don't you just have juries as a profession? there would be people there who would get paid for doing this, it woudl be their full time job...
but don't listen to me:)
in Russia we have juries as an extremely hard to get profession. you have to pay A LOT to get to those unis which educate juries and other people who work with the law.
and it is bad.
really bad.
first you pay to get that education, then you get paid to judge. from people you are going to judge, you understand what I mean?:)
of course there must be some honest juries in Russia too, but I've never heard of them.
in Norway... I don't really know what it is like here, but I think jury is a profession here as well. but this mild norwegian form of socialism is right the opposite to what we have in Russia: everyone is so perfectly honest!! :) of course there must be bad guys here as well, but I've never heard of them.
life is confusing, isn't it? |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:57:38 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
why don't you just have juries as a profession?
in Russia we have juries as an extremely hard to get profession.
and it is bad.
really bad.
first you pay to get that education, then you get paid to judge. from people you are going to judge, you understand what I mean?:)
of course there must be some honest juries in Russia too, but I've never heard of them. |
I think you just answered your own question. :)
But it's so great to learn about other societies and how they do things!
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:05:29 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I think you just answered your own question. :)
But it's so great to learn about other societies and how they do things! |
no:) !! it's exactly the same in Russia and in Norway, but here it works perfectly and there it doesn't.
it's all about people and how societies live, mentality probably?
exactly the same thing works here and not in Russia, exactly the same.
I'm pretty much sure it works everywhere in the world, it's just we are a bit strange in Russia. so sad. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:05:45 PM · #305 |
I didn't know there were paid juries. I had often thought it would be a good idea to use law students as juries (maybe 3rd or 4th year). The average jury of your peers really doesn't understand the law on most matters (I know I don't) and tend to judge purely based on their own ethics.
Another thing that I believe (for the USA) is at least pay a real day's wage to the people so that they can feel comfortable that at least they'll be able to pay their bills, or hire a sitter or whatever. The $5 is an insult. It cost more than that to park where I have to go. If it wasn't such a hardship for most people to serve, I'm sure less people would try to get out of it.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:11:33 PM · #306 |
In the United States, you do have the option to serve on a jury or not. There are many loopholes that let you opt out of the system. It really comes down to how you as an individual feel about it and your willingness to serve. After being on 3 juries, my interest in or tolerance for jury service is close to 0.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:11:50 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Another thing that I believe (for the USA) is at least pay a real day's wage to the people so that they can feel comfortable that at least they'll be able to pay their bills, or hire a sitter or whatever. The $5 is an insult. It cost more than that to park where I have to go. If it wasn't such a hardship for most people to serve, I'm sure less people would try to get out of it. |
Yep, I agree completely. It's not as bad for me. They pay for your parking, and it's $20/day. AND I get paid by my job. I wonder what level of gov't writes the law that says you get paid, but I'm guessing it's for salaried employees, not hourly.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:13:50 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
I didn't know there were paid juries. I had often thought it would be a good idea to use law students as juries (maybe 3rd or 4th year). The average jury of your peers really doesn't understand the law on most matters (I know I don't) and tend to judge purely based on their own ethics.
Another thing that I believe (for the USA) is at least pay a real day's wage to the people so that they can feel comfortable that at least they'll be able to pay their bills, or hire a sitter or whatever. The $5 is an insult. It cost more than that to park where I have to go. If it wasn't such a hardship for most people to serve, I'm sure less people would try to get out of it. |
omg, $5!!
*off topic, but also about money*
I saw a lighting kit on ebay: 2 softboxes, umbrellas, several strobes, reflectors and stuff for around $300. I thought I saw wrong. here in Norway: ONE softbox, NO strobes, ONE reflector for 12000 krones - $2000
how can you judge someone if you don't understand even the basics of the law? (I don't either) what if I don't like how a person look like and it can change my judgement? wow, this is so unfair:(
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 12:15:11. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:11:31 PM · #309 |
You do understand the basics of the law. E.g. you're not supposed to break into  levyj413's appartment and steal things. When you go to court and explain how you were just looking for somewhere out of the cold and you weren't actually taking the things, you just put them in a bag so you could tidy up in return for having borrowed the room, and all sorts of nasty, cynical lawyers and judges have asked embarrassing question like as if they didn't believe you or something, then the jury gets to decide guilty or not guilty. That's all they decide. Someone else decides on the punishment (if the jury says you're guilty).
I think.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:37:00 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
how can you judge someone if you don't understand even the basics of the law? (I don't either) what if I don't like how a person look like and it can change my judgement? wow, this is so unfair:( |
This is why there's more than one person on a jury.
Also whether or not you know the law is, to some extent, irrelevant. The point of a jury is to listen to the evidence presented to them, and then decide, based purely upon that evidence, if the person has done what the prosecution claims that they have done. That's the long and short of it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:35:31 PM · #311 |
Going along with what mist and raish have said, it works like this:
Prosecutor: The law says that this act and that act is illegal (or in a civil case, the law says that this can't be done to someone). X did this bad thing. I'm going to show you evidence that he or she did it.
Defense: No, X didn't. (Or the defense might say "Yes, X did it, but this is why it doesn't matter.)
They present evidence.
Judge: Here is the exact question you're deciding, and exactly what the law says you need to consider.
The jury then thinks about the evidence and votes according to the standard established for that case.
For example, in a criminal case, the standard is that to vote "guilty," you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's evidence demonstrates guilt. If you're not sure, you vote not guilty. The US approach is very strongly that it's the prosecutor's job to convince you, not the defense's. The defense can literally present no evidence and just say "the prosecutor failed to prove the case." That's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
Another important feature in most criminal cases is that it has to be a unanimous vote either way. So one person can't find another guilty or not guilty. The system is set up to ensure, as far as possible, that innocent people go free. The concept is that we know that no justice system is perfect, so we'll make mistakes, but let's make them on the side of freedom. That innocent people go free is deemed more important than that guilty people get punished.
In civil cases, though, and this might vary among states, the standard is often "the majority of the evidence." And the vote might be some majority (1/2, 2/3, etc.).
Then you as a group decide.
So you see, you don't need to know the law; you're told the question you're to decide, and how you're to consider the evidence.
Again, I'm not claiming it runs perfectly every time.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 14:39:07.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:51:41 PM · #312 |
If they call you Mrs Raskolnikov you can claim a mistrial.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:10:30 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
The defense can literally present no evidence and just say "the prosecutor failed to prove the case." That's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
The concept is that we know that no justice system is perfect, so we'll make mistakes, but let's make them on the side of freedom. That innocent people go free is deemed more important than that guilty people get punished.
|
I like this. it sounds nice.
it seems like in Russia it is the opposite: the defence usually have to prove a person is not guilty...
btw, I've just asked my DH and he said in Norway they do have civic juries and a person can get an invitation to be a jury here, too.
he just doesn't know if it's a must or you can say no hanks to this invitation. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:12:10 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by raish:
If they call you Mrs Raskolnikov you can claim a mistrial. |
oooooo;) if they call me Mrs Raskolnikov.... oooooh, I won't even claim anything, they'd better not call me this:)) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 04:34:41 PM · #315 |
| Yaaaaaay I just got a comment on "Bad" that understood stuff and whee! :D |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:30:28 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by raish:
Next time if ever I'm dragged up in front of the judiciary, I want people like Julianne on the jury. |
Raish, you're too funny with your strike out. There seems to be something you haven't shared with us yet.
But, really, thank you and the others for your compliments. And the civic lessons have been very interesting too. It's fascinating to hear how differently this process works in different societies.
I was paid $15/day for the first three days with free parking. Now I have received a raise to -- hang on to your seats -- $30/day! Since I don't have to hire a sitter, this will somewhat exceed my expenses (food and transportation). This court was very considerate to the people for whom this would be a financial hardship, and they were excused. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 07:13:36 AM · #317 |
| Our FL has suggested that Greetmir would make a good teammate on the Hoovers so he will be added to the list. When you stop by welcome him! |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 07:28:25 AM · #318 |
erm .... [user]Greetmir[/url] doesnt work ... heh might wanna change the end one to [/user]
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 07:50:05 AM · #319 |
disingenuity strike out is fun. *strike*thing to be struck*/strike*, with square brackets [ ] instead of asterisks * *, gives thing to be struck
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 11:19:07 AM · #320 |
I've always considered jury duty to be something like military service and getting stopped for, and having to pay, a speeding ticket. It's just one of the duties and obligations you have as a member of this society that you tacitly agree to for the benefits of this country. I won't duck the duty simply because it's inconvenient, though I don't suppose I'll like it much. But I feel that should I ever be up in front of one, that I was in capable, honest hands of other Americans that are serving, maybe not enthusiastically, but honestly as part of the trade-off for their freedom and democracy.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 12:10:07 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I've always considered jury duty to be something like military service and getting stopped for, and having to pay, a speeding ticket. It's just one of the duties and obligations you have as a member of this society that you tacitly agree to for the benefits of this country. I won't duck the duty simply because it's inconvenient, though I don't suppose I'll like it much. But I feel that should I ever be up in front of one, that I was in capable, honest hands of other Americans that are serving, maybe not enthusiastically, but honestly as part of the trade-off for their freedom and democracy. |
um... military service is voluntary and a speeding ticket is something you only get when you... well... speed. It's kind of like saying going to jail is a duty and obligation.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 12:28:28 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by raish:
disingenuity strike out is fun. *strike*thing to be struck*/strike*, with square brackets [ ] instead of asterisks * *, gives thing to be struck |
Umm, Raish, I really wasn't referring to the technical means of using the strike commend. I think there was something implicit in the struck phrase "Next time" that you haven't shared with us yet.
And, Jeb, I'm in agreement with Posthumous that a fine for breaking the law is not exactly the same thing as military or jury service. Lumping all three together would imply that military and jury service are punishments. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 01:16:06 PM · #323 |
| Wow, this discussion has really gone in-depth into the jury process...I thought I'd heard about professional juries in Russia but wasn't sure... whoever thought us Suckers would be so knowledgeable on such matters! ;-) |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 01:49:33 PM · #324 |
Anyone know what happened to Palendrone? ah! ha! michael_p
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 14:07:02. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 02:17:52 PM · #325 |
| This morning, while wandering downtown working on a homework assignment, I noticed a crowd gathering by city hall. So I went over to see what was going on. A Pennsylvania State Representative was announcing his candidancy for Philadelphia mayor. Having my camera out, I start taking photographs. This guy comes over to give me a grief about it. He asks me about being with the press and tells me that all the people in audience have signed a release to have their photographs published as if I would need to do that also. I told him I was just walking by and was a casual photographer and didn't see any reason to have any signed releases in a public place so he backed off. |
|
