Jury Duty?

I do not believe Judical system is corrupted or skewed. It is the laws that is made by congress is so skewed and is the root cause of the problem.

The purpose of having Juror is to separate perspective from those law enforcement agencies, and the judges as well. Without Juror, These law enforcement can easily abuse, and so is Judges would abuse the system. So, because of having Juror, this prevents abuses from happening.

Of course the judical system is not 100% perfect, but I believe far better than any other countries judical system. There are countries out there that have the worst judical system.

I have relatives in the police force. They have told me themselves that there is a lot of corruption that goes on. Some officers will turn a blind eye to a crime or may arrest someone for something petty and ridiculous. Don't get me wrong--there are wonderful well-intentioned officers that seek justice and there are also officers that fall victim to the peer pressures of the police station or are more concerned with getting their month's quota than seeking justice. On the individual level, there are great officers and not so great officers, but those not so great officers lead to corruption in the system as a whole. So I don't think the corruption is just in the laws, I think it's also in the system of enforcement.

I don't really believe our judicial system is any better. We just have more people to sweep the problems under the rug.
 
So what is your solution?

I never said I have a solution. I don't. Although I think it would be a good start if the bad apples in the system didn't persecute innocent people and let guilty people off the hook. It happens all the time and while there are many cases where we can't know for sure if someone is innocent or guilty, there are cases where we do know. If we could eliminate all the times money talks, where it's the person whose lawyer gets paid more that wins the case.
 
Someone give this lady a beer.

She got it.

I agree with you and DeafDoc1. I would never use my deafblindness as a reason not to serve jury duty. It would be because of my views.
 
Yes, that is exact why there is juror duty involved. Without Jurors, the judge would believe the bad cops not the innocent defendents.

Because Jurors involved, they can make decision whether the cop is doing their job properly or not. If one Juror said NOT GUILTY, then the defendant will not be found guilty, end of discussion. Again, Juror should not have any interests in these cops involved. If the selected juror know anyone EVEN if the cop, then that juror is not allowed to sit in juror seat, nor involvement. That is how powerful juror is.

I have relatives in the police force. They have told me themselves that there is a lot of corruption that goes on. Some officers will turn a blind eye to a crime or may arrest someone for something petty and ridiculous. Don't get me wrong--there are wonderful well-intentioned officers that seek justice and there are also officers that fall victim to the peer pressures of the police station or are more concerned with getting their month's quota than seeking justice. On the individual level, there are great officers and not so great officers, but those not so great officers lead to corruption in the system as a whole. So I don't think the corruption is just in the laws, I think it's also in the system of enforcement.

I don't really believe our judicial system is any better. We just have more people to sweep the problems under the rug.
 
Yes, that is exact why there is juror duty involved. Without Jurors, the judge would believe the bad cops not the innocent defendents.

Because Jurors involved, they can make decision whether the cop is doing their job properly or not. If one Juror said NOT GUILTY, then the defendant will not be found guilty, end of discussion. Again, Juror should not have any interests in these cops involved. If the selected juror know anyone EVEN if the cop, then that juror is not allowed to sit in juror seat, nor involvement. That is how powerful juror is.

But the jurors might be going only by what they know, and not the whole story. It doesn't guarantee justice.
 
But the jurors might be going only by what they know, and not the whole story. It doesn't guarantee justice.
It's the responsibility of the lawyers to present the facts of the whole story.

If we can't get 100% of the "whole story" (which still doesn't cover every contingency), we can't just throw up our hands and give up.

Justice by humans (judges or juries) is imperfect but we can't neglect the prosecution criminal acts just because of that.

BTW, the defendant can request a trial by judge rather than jury.
 
I was called to jury duty , but I had my audiolgist write me a letter saying I was not good candidate for jury duty! My audiolgist wrote how bad my hearing was and the court has never called me again!
I would not want myself on jury duty for me! I was had to go to court and my lawyer told the judge
I was HOH , the judge did not believe my lawyer until I show him my HA! What a jerk the judge was!
 
It's the responsibility of the lawyers to present the facts of the whole story.

If we can't get 100% of the "whole story" (which still doesn't cover every contingency), we can't just throw up our hands and give up.

Justice by humans (judges or juries) is imperfect but we can't neglect the prosecution criminal acts just because of that.

BTW, the defendant can request a trial by judge rather than jury.

I'm not saying we should throw up our hands and give up but there is simply too much corruption in any justice system. I don't really have interest in participating in a falsely-glorified ideal that people fail to meet every day simply because of their human emotions and imperfections. I just prefer to face reality and acknowledge that true justice doesn't exist. It's an illusion to make us all feel better.
 
Back
Top