Jury Duty
 

I had Jury Duty today. A criminal case - possession of 20 grams or less of Cannibis.

If you personally disagree with this law, could you vote to convict?


If there is interest I'll post the actual results later.

Prime95,

I would excuse myself from the jury if I felt I couldn't apply the law fairly (i.e. I'd tell the judge I would vote not-guilty no matter the evidence). Otherwise I would feel obligated to follow the law. But I'd only do this on laws I feel are morally wrong to comply with, not with laws I just feel were foolish.

So, on the specific instance you cited, I would have no problem voting for guilty (if that's what the evidence pointed to).

Best,
Pace

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Substance_abuse_controversy[/url] :shock:

What your guy needs is a nice daddy do get him off the hook :whistle:

[QUOTE=Prime95]I had Jury Duty today. A criminal case - possession of 20 grams or less of Cannibis.

If you personally disagree with this law, could you vote to convict?


If there is interest I'll post the actual results later.[/QUOTE]

Is this for the U.S.?

If so, is this for state law or federal law?

The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this
document is to grant very specific powers to the federal government. If
one reads, for example, the Federalist papers, it is clear that our founders,
in their great wisdom [no sarcasm here!] intended that anything not
explicitly allowed by the Constitution is prohibited. There is nothing
in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to restrict
usage of drugs. Indeed, we tried the "great experiment" and it failed.
I ask: If an amendment was required to ban alcohol, why isn't a similar
amendment needed to ban other drugs? I say that it should be required.

OTOH, the Constitution does deed some power to the states through the
9'th and 10'th amendements, although the ^&*#@*#!&^ on the Supreme
Court often have chosen to ignore these amendements.

If it is a state law that prohibits the cannibus, then I would have to say
that the state does have the right to prohibit its use.

Of course, in the U.S. the people are sovereign (theoretically), so we
always hold the power to nullify laws we think are bad through jury nullification. [even though judges and such would like to prohibit it; they
can't].

Follow your conscience.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]I would excuse myself from the jury if I felt I couldn't apply the law fairly[/QUOTE]

Interesting. If you felt a law was morally reprehensible (say, the old Jim Crow laws), wouldn't you get a better moral result by using jury nullification than by passing the buck to the next person?

I'm not saying this law rises to the level of the old Jim Crow laws. But, perhaps jury nullification should be a useful tool in society's checks and balances.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Is this for the U.S.?
If so, is this for state law or federal law?[/QUOTE]

The case was brought by the State of Florida.

Being the only one to vote for the first item, I guess I'm a hard-ass. If I disagree with the law, then it is up to me (and those who believe the same as me) to try to change the law. Until that happens, I have to follow the law. In this case, I would hope that upon a guilty verdict that the judge would not be harsh (such as the three strikes rule where the guilty party would be send to prison for 10 years or so). BTW, I do think that some controlled substances should be legalized, but that doesn't matter.

Zeta-Flux, it depends upon whether or not the judge tells you what the case is about. If he says it is a drug case (without more detail), how can you honestly say that you will always vote not guilty?

There might be cases where "it depends upon the law", but I can't think of any at the moment. I'll change my vote when that happens.

I belive that if they broke the law then they should be convicted thats why the law was put into place. If you break the law then you got to pay the price im saying this because there was proibally a reason why that law passed though are system and why (if national law) 400 and some odd reprisentaives voted for it and agreed upon it setting apart there differences to come into the goal of passing the law. This is a good moral question but i do believe that the person should be convicted.

[QUOTE=Prime95]Interesting. If you felt a law was morally reprehensible (say, the old Jim Crow laws), wouldn't you get a better moral result by using jury nullification than by passing the buck to the next person?
[/QUOTE]That is a good point. I know my first reaction would have been to excuse myself. But, if I had the power to cause a jury nullification, which in this case might be considered a form of protest, then it is something I would consider doing. Especially if the end result would stand even a remote chance of educating just one person.

The rathing unexciting result of jury duty:

During jury questioning, the prosecutor, who was wearing a purple suit, asked: "If there was a silly law making it illegal to wear purple on Mondays would you convict me." She asked 5 or 6 potential jurors who happily would convict her. Then she asked me and I replied I'd be hard-pressed to convict her. I should have said "Are you saying you are prosecuting a case about a silly law?", but I doubt the judge would be happy with a smart-aleck response like that.

The defense questioning centered on "Would you be more inclined to believe a police officer or an average person's story in a he-said she-said case". A rather leading question, and every prospective juror replied yes to some degree.

The end result was that of the 14 prospective jurors, 2 were dismissed because they could not serve for two days. I'm sure the prosecution dumped me and probably the person next to me that was either acting or had fried his brain many years ago. Of the remaining 10, I'd guess the defense raised enough objections that they could not come up with the required 6 jurors and 1 alternate.

Case postponed. Maybe this was part of the defense's effort to force the prosecutor to drop the case or plea it down. We'll never know.

Thankfully, I did not have to decide over a few hours time whether or not I would have to exercise the right of jury nullification. Upon further reflection and reading online, I've decided jury nullification does have a proper role in the judicial system. It should be used sparingly and only for cases that are immoral or clearly against the wishes of the founding fathers. If in doubt, jury nullification should not be exercised.

For me, a person has a right to run his own life free of excessive government intrusion as long as his activities do not impact the rights of other citizens. In the future I will use jury nullification for possession of small amounts of pot, assisted suicide, hate crimes (you have the right to hate someone or some group, but not the right to act on it), and perhaps others.

My advice is next time you are called to jury duty, give some thought beforehand as to the circumstances under which you would use jury nullification.

[QUOTE=rogue]Being the only one to vote for the first item, I guess I'm a hard-ass. If I disagree with the law, then it is up to me (and those who believe the same as me) to try to change the law.

<snip>

[/QUOTE]

The difficulty is that this point of view leads to what our founders called
the 'tyranny of the majority'. If a law, voted in by the majority, oppresses
a minority, changing it is nigh-to-impossible. The only alternative is
nullification.

We are seeing this in the U.S. now. Many states have voted to restrict
rights (indeed, placed the restriction in their state constitution) of a minority
because the majority are offended by that minority. Can you say "biggots"?

And no, I am not gay. But I am appalled by the states that have passed
laws that forbid gays to marry. This goes against the principles under which
the U.S. was founded: equal rights for all. And yes, I am aware that black
people had no rights until the civil war, and even later. But today, no
state would dare pass laws restricting the rights of blacks. But apparently
it is open season on gay people and lesbians. It makes me want to throw up.

It depends on the meanings of "can" and "disagree", at least.

There are laws with which I disagree, but consider ethically valid nevertheless. In such cases, I [i]can[/i] vote guilty (though I might choose not to for other reasons) with a clear conscience.

There are (a [u]very few[/u]) other laws which I might consider ethically invalid, not just simply disagreeable. In such cases, I might refuse to vote guilty regardless of evidence.

So I could have chosen either the first, second, or third poll choice depending on interpretation of the poll's wording.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]I am appalled by the states that have passed
laws that forbid gays to marry. This goes against the principles under which
the U.S. was founded: equal rights for all.[/QUOTE]I find the gay-marriage issue a little less clear-cut than that. On the one hand, I agree that consenting adults should have the right to engage in pretty much any behavior they wish if it doesn't endanger or infringe on the constutional rights of others. On the other hand, most societies have granted marriage (even if they define it in differing ways) a special status, because a stable family structure (which is the hoped-for result of the institution of marriage) is vital to a society's long-term survival. Even more directly, a society has a compelling interest in nurturing a family structure (whatever it happens to be) that leads to procreation. The society that doesn't have enough children surviving to adulthood is doomed - basic biology rears its ugly head. Now historically, different societies have defined marriage in a wide variety of ways - one-man-one-woman, polygamous, polygynous, whatever - but all of these are fundamentally procreative. It's only been very recently in human history that there have been enough people and a sufficiently lowered infant mortality rate that we as a species have had the luxury of relaxing (on a large scale) the procreative imperative enshrined by most traditional marital institutions. But we're dealing with entrenched institutions and (in many cases) religious beliefs, so it should not be surprising that many people don't want to change the definition of marriage willy-nilly. The liberal-legal-scholar types may say, "but gay marriage was never prohibited before in State XYZ," and in the sense of there being no specific laws prohibiting it, they may be right. But I doubt it was even an issue until recently - the idea of gays marrying would have seemed ludicrous as little as a century ago, and the need for a specific law banning it even more so. (Heck, that's what the various states had their anti-sodomy statutes for. ;) Most states don't have specific laws preventing a farmer from marrying his favorite cow, either - I use that analogy not to belittle the idea of gay marriage, but rather to show how ludicrous the idea probably was to most of western society until quite recently.

Also, while marriage between gays may be the hot-button legal issue currently, most western societies have in fact historically disallowed analogous nontraditional kinds of marriages. If you are (say) a Mormon or a Muslim man, your religion allows you take more than one wife (though not without restrictions - for instance IIRC a Muslim must be able to support all his wives, and is allowed no more than four, though the keeping of a harem appears to be a separate issue. ;) But that practice has long been banned in the U.S., even though it could well be argued that such a ban amounts to religious discrimination. In that sense, there are groups that would seem to have an even stronger claim that their nontraditional marriage structures should enjoy legal sanction, because they are part of their religion, those religions are recognized by the U.S. as such, and there is strong historical precedent for their alternative marriage structures working just fine in other parts of the world, not infringing on anyone else's constitutional rights (note that there is no "right to not be offended" in the constitution), and being procreative, to boot. My point is, if you let one alternative type of marriage in, it won't stop there. If you have no problem with gay marriage, ask yourself: how do you feel about polygamy? Or child marriage? (Also the historical norm in many parts of the world.) Like I said, it's not such a simple issue. While I personally have no problem with gays getting married, I do also believe that it opens a real legal can of worms.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Is this for the U.S.?

If so, is this for state law or federal law?

The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this document is to grant very specific powers to the federal government. If one reads, for example, the Federalist papers, it is clear that our founders, in their great wisdom [no sarcasm here!] intended that anything not explicitly allowed by the Constitution is prohibited. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to restrict usage of drugs. Indeed, we tried the "great experiment" and it failed. I ask: If an amendment was required to ban alcohol, why isn't a similar amendment needed to ban other drugs? I say that it should be required.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty misleading argument. First off, the Constitution is intended strictly as a *framework* document, one that summarizes the essential basic principles of the U.S. legal system - specific details are left to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_law]U.S. Legal Code[/url] (federal law), and the various state laws. Your example or prohibition (and the later repeal thereof) is one of the curious exceptions, in which the constitution was amended in a very specific way. Now the state and federal government need no special sanction to make laws regulating the use of mind-altering substances, since unregulated use thereof clearly poses a danger to society (e.g. driving drunk), i.e. infringes or threatens to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. It's the standard and well-established "compelling interest" test of constitutionality. The real question is simply to what *extent* the state and federal governments can and should regulate the use of alcohol and drugs. The idea that certain drugs should legal for administration by a physician but not otherwise is well-established and quite reasonable, as is the threshold principle: certain drugs taken in small quantities (e.g. alcohol) don't pose a substantial danger to oneself or others. That is not to say that the law is riddled with inconsistencies and biases - for instance does smoking a joint make a person more dangerous to those around him than drinking a dozen beers? Doubtful. Is it more of a health hazard than smoking a pack of cigarettes? Also dubious. But the idea that the federal and state governments don't have a compelling interest in these matters (i.e. lack the right to make such laws, period), that's a non-starter, and I'm sure the founding fathers would have agreed. Specifically, from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution]Article 1 of the constitution[/url] (which establishes the legislative branch of the federal government and enumerates its powers), Section 8:

[i]"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and [color=red]provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States[/color]; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"[/i]

Wikipedia writes:

[i]Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress.

Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare", leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Nonetheless, Congress continues to make expansive use of the General Welfare Clause. For instance, the social security program is authorized under the General Welfare Clause.[/i]

[QUOTE=Prime95]I had Jury Duty today. A criminal case - possession of 20 grams or less of Cannibis.

If you personally disagree with this law, could you vote to convict?


If there is interest I'll post the actual results later.[/QUOTE]

The one criminal jury I was on, it was over 550 grams of cocaine, where the cop asked the person "Whos coke is this?" and the person answered "Mine", defense didn't dispute it, and the person plead innocent. Idiot. One juror thought he was a kid that just needed a break, after we were served lunch, the other 11 of us convinced him. Judge was surprised it took 5 hours. We convicted on possession without intent to deliver, which the judge thought was the right decision since there was another much older defendant involved. Not that it mattered for the kid, he was in jail on another charge, they wouldn't say what.

Half a kilo makes the decision easy. 20 grams of pot, wow, thats like what, half a pack of cigarettes? The court costs alone (no counting cops, lawyers, blah blah) was probably more than the pot was worth. That's just insane man...

[QUOTE=ewmayer]special status, because a stable family structure (which is the hoped-for result of the institution of marriage) is vital to a society's long-term survival. [/QUOTE]

The "biology"/"family" argument is unadulterated horseshit.

If the argument has any merit then *ALL* marriage that does not result
in children must be banned.

People marry for many reasons. There has NEVER been a requirement
in the U.S. that marriage must result in children.

Banning gay marriage is bigotry. There is no other interpretation possible.

[QUOTE=ewmayer] Now the state and federal government need no special sanction to make laws regulating the use of mind-altering substances, since unregulated use thereof clearly poses a danger to society (e.g. driving drunk), i.e. infringes or threatens to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. [/QUOTE]

Yes and No. I agree with your argument about posing a danger to others.
But we allow alcohol. And alcohol causes many fatalities on our highway.
And society bears many economic costs associated with treating alcoholism.


The law should be against "driving while impaired". Indeed, IMO our current
drunk driving laws are not nearly harsh enough. Stengthen the laws.
RAH had some nice suggestions for dealing with DUI: public floggings.
And vehicular homicide should NOT be treated more leniently than
other 2ND Degree murders (i.e. depraved indifference murders)

But there is no law against getting drunk in the privacy of one's home.
Nor should there be a law against smoking pot or preventing morons
from shooting up Heroin, inhaling nose candy, or whatever their perversion
might be. I am very contemptuous of people who find a need to pickle
their brains with such. But I also strongly believe that society has no right
to pass laws to protect people from their own stupidity. Laws should
exist to protect us from OTHER PEOPLE's stupidty. We allow alcohol,
but have laws to prevent DUI. Alcohol is just another drug. But our
current society, in its narrow-mindedness, somehow believes that
other drugs should be treated differently. Indeed, IMO we should eliminate
ALL "victimless crime" laws.

And for the record: I do not take such drugs.

I believe in *PERSONAL* responsibility. As long as my actions do not harm
others, the government has ZERO right to interfere with what I do. And I
demand consistency in our laws.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]… we allow alcohol. … society bears many economic costs associated with treating alcoholism. … As long as my actions do not harm others, the government has ZERO right to interfere with what I do. And I demand consistency in our laws.[/QUOTE]

By your very argument, those who do not take personal responsibility *DO* harm others, namely "you and me", the society that has to pay the costs that result from their action.

Do you not consider that intentionally destroying your ability to be self-supporting is a "harm" to those who end up having to pay for your future existance? Or do you propose that we simply throw those individuals on the "trash heap of humanity" because they made a bad choice?

I argue that it is therefore properly in the interest of society to regulate the consumption of substances which have adverse effect on the body.

Unfortunately, everything is a tradeoff. Studies seem to indicate that there is some value in the moderate consumption of alcohol. It is also clear that excessive consumption has detrimental effects. Many of the negative aspects of "recreational drugs" are known. Positive ones, if there are any, are much harder to quantify.

I certainly don't think that our Legislatures have gotten it right. But I do think that it *IS* their business.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]The "biology"/"family" argument is unadulterated horseshit.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. You are confusing encouraging the general population with forcing an individual. The government is trying to create laws that encourage the formation of stable families without unconstitutionally forcing individuals to behave a specific way.

This is true of many laws. Business tax credits are passed to encourage specific investments - not force businesses to invest. Home mortgage deductions are given to encourage home ownership for families. The government can't force you to buy a home or only give the deduction to those families that it deems stable and deserving.

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that most legislators use religious and other arguments that should not play a role in the government's legitimate interest in the issue.

You'll make more progress on the gay marriage issue by pointing out that gay parents have a good track record in raising normal well-adjusted children. Give it time - it will probably take another 20 to 40 years before the tide will turn.

[QUOTE=Prime95]No it isn't. You are confusing encouraging the general population with forcing an individual. The government is trying to create laws that encourage the formation of stable families without unconstitutionally forcing individuals to behave a specific way.

This is true of many laws. Business tax credits are passed to encourage specific investments - not force businesses to invest. Home mortgage deductions are given to encourage home ownership for families. The government can't force you to buy a home or only give the deduction to those families that it deems stable and deserving.

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that most legislators use religious and other arguments that should not play a role in the government's legitimate interest in the issue.

You'll make more progress on the gay marriage issue by pointing out that gay parents have a good track record in raising normal well-adjusted children. Give it time - it will probably take another 20 to 40 years before the tide will turn.[/QUOTE]


Raising children is IRRELEVANT. There is no requirement under current
laws that married couples raise children. Many people get married who
either can not have or do not want children. Perhaps you should
forbid them to marry as well.

And if you insist that the purpose of providing tax breaks to married
people is to encourage them to have children, then the logic of this
argument says that the tax breaks should ONLY go to those married
couples who do have children.

The tax benefits apply to EVERYONE who gets married. Not just those
who raise families.

The ban on gay marriage exists because of long standing prejudice
against gays; particularly religious based prejudice.

[QUOTE=Wacky]By your very argument, those who do not take personal responsibility *DO* harm others, namely "you and me", the society that has to pay the costs that result from their action.[/QUOTE]

You could also argue that highly addictive drugs often leads to criminal acts in support of the habit. Therefore the "general welfare" clause may come into play.

This is why I personally decided that I could convict for possession of other drugs. While I may disagree that incarceration is the best treatment, I feel it is my duty as a citizen to let the legislative process decide. Since pot is not in the category of highly addictive life destroying drugs, only this passes my "when in doubt don't use jury nullification" rule.

I must also confess strong agreement with Bob's belief in *PERSONAL* responibility. If you destroy your life with drugs, society does not owe you anything. Society could leave you on "trash heap of humanity" and it would be OK with me - you *CHOSE* to go down that path. However, I do support both government and charitable drug rehab and counseling programs that society has chosen to offer simply out of kindness.

Rogue,

[QUOTE]Zeta-Flux, it depends upon whether or not the judge tells you what the case is about. If he says it is a drug case (without more detail), how can you honestly say that you will always vote not guilty?[/QUOTE]I didn't say I'd always vote not guilty. You might want to re-read my post. I said I would have no problem voting guilty (if the person was guilty).

Prime95,

[QUOTE]Interesting. If you felt a law was morally reprehensible (say, the old Jim Crow laws), wouldn't you get a better moral result by using jury nullification than by passing the buck to the next person?[/QUOTE]You might be right. I haven't really thought it through that much.

I think the point I was trying to make in my first post is that I believe that most 'dumb' laws should be respected, even if we personally disagree with the rationality behind them, unless we have a very good reason to do otherwise. I think the will of the majority shouldn't be trampled on too frequently, or we end up with confusion and anarchy.

ewmayer,

One slight correction. Mormons may not marry more than one wife at a time anymore. Even in countries where it is legal. Strangely enough, most other Christian churches that I know of allow polygamous converts in other countries.

R.D. Silverman,

I feel like I might be sticking my neck in the chopping block so to speak, but I thought I'd respond to this: "Raising children is IRRELEVANT. There is no requirement under current laws that married couples raise children. Many people get married who either can not have or do not want children. Perhaps you should forbid them to marry as well.

And if you insist that the purpose of providing tax breaks to married
people is to encourage them to have children, then the logic of this
argument says that the tax breaks should ONLY go to those married
couples who do have children.

The tax benefits apply to EVERYONE who gets married. Not just those who raise families."

You seem to be missing the following: While you are correct that there is no requirement under current law that married couples raise children, it is also true that married couples are more likely to raise children (either through accident or design) in a more stable environment. Thus, raising children is not irrelevant. The government, by giving tax breaks to married couples (and then MORE tax breaks when the children come), is (in a sense) gambling that this will *lead to* children being raised in a stable environment.

You also said: "The ban on gay marriage exists because of long standing prejudice against gays; particularly religious based prejudice."

While I agree that that is part of it, you are focusing on this aspect to the neglect of some other factors.

For example, as a way of analogy (but I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, equating gay marriage with what I'm going to talk about), consider incest. Why are there laws against it? Well, longstanding prejudice against it, particularly religious based prejudice, certainly is true (just like in gay marriage). But there are other factors. Our society looks down at such things, feeling that there is a slippery slope in the works. If we allow incest, will that lead to more abuse of children? Further, nowadays we know about genetic problems that come from such unions. By just focusing on "there is a ban on incest because of prejudice, particularly religious based prejudice" such a person would be ignoring the real argument, and also blatantly trying to offend those who do have religious based reasons for not liking incest. Not to say such a person can't do this (we all have our agency, after all). I'm merely saying that if productive dialogue is wanted, actually respecting the other person's views is needed.

Prime95,

[QUOTE]I agree that gay marriage should be allowed and that most legislators use religious and other arguments that should not play a role in the government's legitimate interest in the issue.[/QUOTE]

Since this thread has jumped the track, I thought I'd ask: When do you feel that religious arguments should play a role in government? What do you feel constitutes a religious argument? For example, is the argument "Murder should be against the law because protecting it's citizens is the role of government" a religious one? Is the doctrine, "Only actions that harm others should be legistlated against" a religious one? If not, what (in your opinion) is the difference of it from a religious one?

Thanks,
ZF

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]Since this thread has jumped the track, I thought I'd ask: When do you feel that religious arguments should play a role in government? What do you feel constitutes a religious argument? For example, is the argument "Murder should be against the law because protecting it's citizens is the role of government" a religious one?[/QUOTE]

"Murder should be against the law because protecting its citizens is the role of government" is not a religious argument. It is an argument for the law based upon rights granted in the non-religious document, the U.S. Constitution. "Murder should be against the law because the Bible says so" is a religious argument.

My point on gay marriage is that if we agree with ewmayer's assessment that it falls under the general welfare clause, then arguments as to whether gay marriage would corrupt adults or children into becoming gay, child molesters, aids-spreaders, whatever are all legitimate arguments -- you can argue that these traits are bad for propogating a healthy society and you can try and explain how gay marriage would cause an increase in these traits. IMO, the argument that gay marriage should be banned because it is against some religion is wrong because I don't see where Constitution grants lawmakers the right to make laws using that reasoning.

Of course, that's just one person's opinion.....

Tying gay marriage back to the start of this thread... I would use jury nullification in a privacy-of-their-own-home sodomy case. As I think it is pretty clear that sodomy has no negative effect on the general welfare. Laws simply have not caught up with the times.

Prime95,

Thanks. I was a little surprised that you said that the Constitution is not a religious document. It was based upon religious idealogies. It mentions God. Can you clarify how you view it as a non-religious document? Or perhaps, tell me how you differentiate between those things which come from a religious background and remain religious, vs. those things which lose their religiosity. ;)

[QUOTE]Tying gay marriage back to the start of this thread... I would use jury nullification in a privacy-of-their-own-home sodomy case. As I think it is pretty clear that sodomy has no negative effect on the general welfare.[/QUOTE]I would dispute your last claim. I don't think this is clear at all. Do you have unbiased scientific studies to back you up? If not, then I think it is a mistake to believe you know enough about this issue to over-rule the point of law. (So that you might see more of where I am coming from, I might liken your claim to the following hypothetical: Suppose we are back in 1970, and you claim that "free love" has no negative effects on the general welfare. From our current view, in 2006, we know that this claim is patently false. And yet, from the view of those in 1970, they believed it. I think the gay-pride movement is similar. It weakens the role of traditional families in our society, which were weakened by earlier movements.)

One more line of thought from me. Do you believe that the only reason that behavior should be outlawed is for negative effects on the general welfare? How do you measure a negative effect? Why do you believe this? (So, for example, while it is clear [at least to me] bestiality hurts the person involved in it, it isn't clear [at least to me] that there is any negative effect on the general welfare [modulo the fact that any negative on a part affects the whole]. So, should I use jury nullification to set free someone who commits bestiality, simply because I don't see how it will affect me [or society] as a whole in the negative? [And, just as a note, I am NOT equating bestiality with sodomy. I am merely trying to see if we can explore the idea of "only those things which hurt society in general should be legislated against."])

[QUOTE=Prime95]You could also argue that highly addictive drugs often leads to criminal acts in support of the habit. Therefore the "general welfare" clause may come into play.

This is why I personally decided that I could convict for possession of other drugs. While I may disagree that incarceration is the best treatment, I feel it is my duty as a citizen to let the legislative process decide. Since pot is not in the category of highly addictive life destroying drugs, only this passes my "when in doubt don't use jury nullification" rule.

I must also confess strong agreement with Bob's belief in *PERSONAL* responibility. If you destroy your life with drugs, society does not owe you anything. Society could leave you on "trash heap of humanity" and it would be OK with me - you *CHOSE* to go down that path. However, I do support both government and charitable drug rehab and counseling programs that society has chosen to offer simply out of kindness.[/QUOTE]

Highly addictive drugs would not lead to criminal acts if drugs were
easily available. i.e. legal. Prohibition brought crime. Statistics show
lower crime *after* it was repealed. Also, alcoholism also went down.
Think of all the violent crimes now committed not because people take
drugs, but because distributing it is illegal and leads to gang feuds,
murder etc.

If someone pickles theit brain and/or liver, offer medical help/counseling.
Otherwise, think of it as "evolution in action".

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]I was a little surprised that you said that the Constitution is not a religious document. It was based upon religious idealogies. It mentions God. Can you clarify how you view it as a non-religious document?[/quote]

While there is no debate that the Constitution was created by religious men, it's purpose was to create a framework for government.

[quote]I would dispute your last claim. I don't think this is clear at all. Do you have unbiased scientific studies to back you up?[/quote]

No, I don't have any studies to back me up. However, I know of very few people that believe the government should have any say in what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Even the Supreme Court struck down an anti-sodomy law just a few years ago. Even so, many such laws remain on the books although rarely enforced.

[quote]If not, then I think it is a mistake to believe you know enough about this issue to over-rule the point of law. [/quote]

That's why I think jury nullification should only be used rarely -- for fundamentally immoral or laws in areas the government has no business legislating. Merely disagreeing with the law is not enough.

[quote]I think the gay-pride movement is similar. It weakens the role of traditional families in our society[/quote]

This is where the legitimate debate lies. In theory, we elect legislators that carefully weigh the pluses and minuses and out comes a law. Reality, unfortunately, is a knee-jerk no-thought reaction with a sound bite meant to capture a few votes next election.

I cannot agree with you gay households will weaken family values. If a gay couple moved next door to you, would that negatively impact how you raise your children? I'm sure you'll agree that single-parent households have "weakened the role of traditional families in society". Does that mean a divorced mother-of-two moving in next door would also negatively impact you?

I'm interested in hearing the specifics of how you think gay marriage would negatively impact society - even if we never see eye-to-eye.

[quote]So, for example, while it is clear bestiality hurts the person involved in it, it isn't clear [at least to me] that there is any negative effect on the general welfare[/quote]

I object to bestiality only because it is cruel to the animal. Some states have laws against using sex toys. Do you think those laws are just and if so on what basis does the government care?

[quote]I am merely trying to see if we can explore the idea of "only those things which hurt society in general should be legislated against."])[/QUOTE]

There are other valid reasons generating laws. Here we have been discussing laws under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.

[QUOTE]That's why I think jury nullification should only be used rarely -- for fundamentally immoral or laws in areas the government has no business legislating. Merely disagreeing with the law is not enough.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree.

[QUOTE]This is where the legitimate debate lies. In theory, we elect legislators that carefully weigh the pluses and minuses and out comes a law. Reality, unfortunately, is a knee-jerk no-thought reaction with a sound bite meant to capture a few votes next election.

I cannot agree with you gay households will weaken family values. If a gay couple moved next door to you, would that negatively impact how you raise your children? I'm sure you'll agree that single-parent households have "weakened the role of traditional families in society". Does that mean a divorced mother-of-two moving in next door would also negatively impact you?

I'm interested in hearing the specifics of how you think gay marriage would negatively impact society - even if we never see eye-to-eye.
[/QUOTE]Well...since you asked, I guess I can oblige you. :D

First, I should say that you sort of made my point for me. While having a single-parent household next door doesn't negatively impact me personally (at least as far as I can tell), it is the OVERALL effect of the rise in single-parent homes that is the problem. So, while I personally know lots of gays and they don't impact me personally in a negative way, I think the whole culture (as a WHOLE) does negatively impact society.

Anyway, for a well-thought-out, articulate, somewhat societally based version of what I believe (for the most part) I recommend this article by Orson Scott Card: [url]http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html[/url]

For a non-well-thought-out, non-articulare, and non-societally based version of what I believe, here is a summary: I believe God created us male and female to be more like Him. He creates and gives life. He gave us the same ability. Further, I believe that this ability, to be like God (knowing good and evil, and creating) will continue after death if we obey Him. I believe family relationships can endure after death. Further, just like murder is the unauthorized version of taking life, I believe that sex outside of marriage (whether or not procreation will result) is the unauthorized version of this sacred act of bringing life to this world.

Some of the negative impacts I see from gay-marriage are as follows:
1) It teaches young children that their gender is meaningless (or less important).
2) It teaches us that the rearing of children is not as an important part of life and society.
3) It infiltrates our society, so that those things which (I believe) are very beneficial (such as a traditional marriage) are thought less of, due to multiple options. People feel like they need to consider the alternative (am I gay?) when in fact, they shouldn't have to think about it in the first place. (Just like the movement of mothers to the workplace brought about the 'latch-key kid' movement, when in fact the cost of childcare [and the cost to the family] is much greater than the gain [of success in the workplace].)

Of course, each of these could easily be argued against. I'm speaking from a somewhat hard-lined perspective when in reality I think it is more subtle than how I portrayed it above.

Some of the negative impacts of legistlating against gay marriage are:
1) It prevents partners from receiving some of the usual benefits that a marriage has (such as dual insurances, inheritances after death, etc...)
2) Some people will use such laws as an excuse for hatred.
3) If we legislate against some freely chosen acts by consenting adults, what rationality are we using? Our personal religion? Our biases?

I feel like it is ridiculous to just assume that if we throw away traditional marriage, without any evidence (for OR against) that such will not hurt society, we are taking a radical and dangerous step. I'm willing to wait until more evidence comes in (at least, on the non-religious side of the issue).

[QUOTE]I object to bestiality only because it is cruel to the animal. Some states have laws against using sex toys. Do you think those laws are just and if so on what basis does the government care?[/QUOTE]Good point about cruelty.

On the other issue...maybe there is a correlation with other things? I don't know. I don't really want to know actually!

Okay, time for me to get some sleep.

Zeta-Flux,
A few questions. From your religious position it seems you are against sex outside marriage as well. Can you clarify whether you support making sex outside marriage illegal since it "harms the fabric of society".
I find your list of negative impacts of gay marriage rather arbitrary. You do not have any proof of that. I also find your statement that the abundance of "latch-key kids" was negative and the cost of child-care outweighs the "gains in the workplace". I grew up as a latch-key kid so I speak from personal experience. I thought and continue to think that it was great that both my parents worked. I never thought I was deprived because my mother was not home in the afternoons after I came back from school.
You talk about gains in the work-place but what about the massive impact it has had on women? They have more freedom and are not dependent on their husbands financially to the extent they used to be. Now you may argue that has led to an increase in divorces. I agree but the cause is not financial independence for women. The cause is unfair treatment of women. Financial independence allows them to get out of relationships they may not want to stay in.
There is a case to be made that divorce rates are too high in the US and Europe. But the reason is not what you put forth. By repressing women and gays, you are not going to make society "healthier". Allowing gay marriage is not the same as "throwing away traditional marriage".

PS: I know your arguments were probably more hardline than you actual beliefs. So my post is in the response to those arguments and not your beliefs.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]

Anyway, for a well-thought-out, articulate, somewhat societally based version of what I believe (for the most part) I recommend this article by Orson Scott Card: [url]http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html[/url]

[/QUOTE]

O.S.C. a mormon kook.

I quote George Carlin:

We need an 11'th commandment: "Keep thy religion to thyself".

You are entitled to any silly beliefs that you want. But keep them in your
home and church. Stop shoving them at the rest of us.

Social policy needs to be established on the basis of fair treatment for
all, and not upon the opinion of twits who take the bible [a book of
folk-lore full of violence, rape, and inhuman behavior] literally.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Highly addictive drugs would not lead to criminal acts if drugs were easily available. i.e. legal.[/QUOTE]

They still might. Even easily available drugs cost something. Addicts will have a tough time holding jobs. Add to that crimes committed while under the influence.

We are debating two points here. 1) The government's right to legislate in this area. 2) The actual laws the governement has passed.

I happen to agree with you on point #2 that legalization is the better way to go. Yet since a reasonable argument can be made on point #1, I think it is my duty as a Juror to uphold the existing laws that I disagree with.

[QUOTE=Prime95] I think it is my duty as a Juror to uphold the existing laws that I disagree with.[/QUOTE]

Here, we (sort of) disagree. I think it is my duty as a CITIZEN to invoke jury
nullification on laws that I think are bad. It is part of our system of
checks and balances on our government.

"Think are bad" is not necessarily the same as "disagree". I might think
that a law is somewhat reasonable, but still disagree with it. I would not
invoke nullification with such laws.

But I will agree that I am (probably) more distrustful of our government than
most people.

ZF,

Thanks for sharing. Without delving too much into the issue, I would argue that there are a myriad of reasons for the decline in family values. The mere fact that some other person is gay is not one of them.

Given that gay couples will continue to cohabitate, are you opposed to defining a new marriage-like institution, gay unions, that provide the denied benefits of marriage you mention?

Such a compromise would allow you to claim marriage is a special institution between a man and a woman. It might remove the issue from television shows and the front page of newspapers as they would move on to the next hot-button issue.

R.D. Silverman,

[QUOTE]You are entitled to any silly beliefs that you want. But keep them in your home and church. Stop shoving them at the rest of us.
[/QUOTE]When did I start doing that? I was [i]asked specifically to share my beliefs[/i]. I didn't shove them at anyone. :huh:

-------------------------------------------------

garo,

[QUOTE]A few questions. From your religious position it seems you are against sex outside marriage as well. Can you clarify whether you support making sex outside marriage illegal since it "harms the fabric of society".[/QUOTE]Well, that is a tricky question. In some instances I would think it appropriate, and in others not. (For example, in heaven I don't imagine it is wrong for God to make it 'illegal'. But here and now, I don't know that it would be effective.) It all comes down to what kind of society we all want to live in, and what laws we want applied to us.

But, personally, I think a more effective curb to sex outside of marriage than making it illegal is simpling teaching our children how to restrain themselves until they are married.

[QUOTE]I find your list of negative impacts of gay marriage rather arbitrary. You do not have any proof of that.[/QUOTE]I agree. I wrote it late at night, since I stayed up late programming, and I'm a little sick, so some of it was a little arbitrary and not-well-thought-out.

I also agree that I don't have any proof of it. I also don't have proof that God exists, or that life, of some sort or another, continues after death. But that doesn't mean these beliefs aren't based on some rationality. Or that I should abandon them.

I've personally seen homes destroyed by lust, both homosexual and non. These experiences clearly skew my take on such things. I can only go on what I've seen first hand, and what I've seen sickens me.

[QUOTE]I also find your statement that the abundance of "latch-key kids" was negative and the cost of child-care outweighs the "gains in the workplace". I grew up as a latch-key kid so I speak from personal experience. I thought and continue to think that it was great that both my parents worked. I never thought I was deprived because my mother was not home in the afternoons after I came back from school.[/QUOTE]That's great. I'm glad you had a good experience. However, you (just as I was) are speaking only from personal experience. Sociologists tell us, very VERY clearly, that this has been negative (on the AVERAGE) for children.

[QUOTE]You talk about gains in the work-place but what about the massive impact it has had on women? They have more freedom and are not dependent on their husbands financially to the extent they used to be. Now you may argue that has led to an increase in divorces. I agree but the cause is not financial independence for women. The cause is unfair treatment of women. Financial independence allows them to get out of relationships they may not want to stay in.[/QUOTE]I agree that financial independence is a good thing. I just believe there are more important things in life, and that the problem of having a bad relationship should, more often than not, be worked through than worked out of. I'm speaking on average here, and most people (due to this new independence) choose to lose something more than they gained.

[QUOTE]By repressing women and gays, you are not going to make society "healthier".[/QUOTE]Who's talking about "repression" here? *Not supporting* gay unions is NOT the same thing as repressing the soul.

By the way, I also do NOT support repressing women. I just think that being a stay-at-home mother is a noble endeavor. Period. Women who don't stay home have made their choice, and they live with it, for good or ill. I'm personally very glad that it worked out in your home.

As an aside, my wife is a computer programmer. I think working out of the home was a good experience for her too. But we chose (TOGETHER) that it would be better if she stayed home with our children (when they came). This wasn't an easy choice, since it means a drastic reduction in the amount of money we make (I'm only a lowly graduate student) but we don't regret that choice.

[QUOTE]Allowing gay marriage is not the same as "throwing away traditional marriage".[/QUOTE]I agree. But it is the same as modifying it drastically, with little evidence that this change won't hurt society.

[QUOTE]PS: I know your arguments were probably more hardline than you actual beliefs. So my post is in the response to those arguments and not your beliefs.[/QUOTE]No problem. Sometimes I like to play devil's advocate.

[QUOTE=Prime95]Thanks for sharing. Without delving too much into the issue, I would argue that there are a myriad of reasons for the decline in family values. The mere fact that some other person is gay is not one of them.[/QUOTE]I agree. If I gave that impression, I apologize.

[QUOTE]Given that gay couples will continue to cohabitate, are you opposed to defining a new marriage-like institution, gay unions, that provide the denied benefits of marriage you mention?[/QUOTE]I think any government *support* of such institutions is inappropriate. However, I don't feel it would be bad to have an easier time of getting inheritances, or dual insurances.

[QUOTE]Such a compromise would allow you to claim marriage is a special institution between a man and a woman. It might remove the issue from television shows and the front page of newspapers as they would move on to the next hot-button issue.[/QUOTE]Maybe so. We humans like a little drama, wherever we can get it. There will be no end to hot-button issues. Or maybe there would, if the courts didn't keep overstepping their authority and legislating from the bench.

R.D. Silverman,

Please take the following as a fun little exercise I decided to perform. It is NOT meant in a mean-spirited way.

I thought it would be interesting to see which logical fallacies your post commits. I took my list from: [url]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/[/url] So, here we go:

1) Ad hominem: You reject OSC because he is a "mormon kook."
2) Appeal to authority: You quote George Carlin on matters of religiousity.
3) Appeal to emotion: Strong language like "shoving" beliefs.
4) Appeal to ridicule: Your thoughts on the Bible.
5) Straw Man: You group my view with the fundamentalist Bible believers.
6) Begging the question: You imply that the position of not supporting gay marriage is not "fair treatment."
7) The Princess Bride Fallacy: Only slightly less well known is this. Never go against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! Hahaha...erp. *thunk*

I really don't want to stick my head in the hornet's nest, but I don't see textual support for this statement regarding the Constitution:
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux][...] It mentions God.[...][/QUOTE]
Care to point out where?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]R.D. Silverman,

Please take the following as a fun little exercise I decided to perform. It is NOT meant in a mean-spirited way.

I thought it would be interesting to see which logical fallacies your post commits. I took my list from: [url]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/[/url] So, here we go:

1) Ad hominem: You reject OSC because he is a "mormon kook."

Not I. Go read rec.arts.sf.written for a while. I would say that this
statement is the consensus opinion.


2) Appeal to authority: You quote George Carlin on matters of religiousity.


I never said he was an authority. I merely quoted a statement he made.
As far as I am concerned all religion is total horseshit and there is no
such thing as an authority on the subject.


3) Appeal to emotion: Strong language like "shoving" beliefs.

This is exactly what people are doing.


4) Appeal to ridicule: Your thoughts on the Bible.

This is not a logical fallacy. The bible deserves NOTHING BUT ridicule.
As do people who take it literally.

5) Straw Man: You group my view with the fundamentalist Bible believers.

I never said any such thing.
6) Begging the question: You imply that the position of not supporting gay marriage is not "fair treatment."

It is clear that it is not fair treatment. It singles out a minority and
forbids them from having equal rights.

[/QUOTE]

Finally: It is a logical fallacy to expect anyone to prove that gay marriage
will NOT cause harm. One can NEVER prove a negative. Claiming that
it WILL cause harm is a positive statement and it is the responsibility of
those making the claim to prove THEIR case.

xxxxx.

Actually, this last statement is not fair. I have no wish to insult xxxxxs.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Finally: It is a logical fallacy to expect anyone to prove that gay marriage will NOT cause harm. One can NEVER prove a negative. Claiming that it WILL cause harm is a positive statement and it is the responsibility of those making the claim to prove THEIR case.[/quote]So, to use a number-theoretic analogy, if I say "the 20th Fermat number is NOT prime", you say this is unprovable? Seriously, if one uses the not-dissimilar example of single-parent households, there are any number of metrics by which one can argue whether or not children growing up in such households are at a disadvantage with respect to those growing up in both-parent households: economic, time-spent-with-one's-kids, whether children raised in SPHs show a greater incidence of emotional problems growing up, etc.

[quote]
Moron.

Actually, this last statement is not fair. I have no wish to insult morons.[/QUOTE]
Was that really necessary? Why must you always resort to throwing vitriol? This is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree - is "respectfully disagree" not something you are capable of?

sdbardwick,

I stand corrected. He is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Sorry.

Fascinating topic. Some very interesting views being expressed, and I'm glad to see that those I intellectually respect the most overlap with my own points of view the most.

I voted 'maybe', as sometimes I'd rather not bite the bullet. Each case should be judged on its individual merits.

It's a shame Bob brought up the "you can never prove a negative" fallacy, and didn't take the effort to say what he meant, instead using an overused and sometimes inappropriate cliche.

Almost always what it means is something like:
If the only method of proof at disposal is that of finding examples, then one may not assert nonexistance unless one can perform an exhaustive test and still find no examples; if one can't perform an exhaustive test, one may not validly make such a claim.

OK, the cliche's shorter, but always muddies the waters when mathematicians are around, as they will always volunteer an interpretation where it's fallacious. Perhaps mathematicians should simply learn what the cliche represents, rather than what the words spell out.

I'm also glad to see that Bob knows that things along the lines of "you're an idiot and you're wrong" are not an /ad hominem/. That's simply two separate statements of opinion, delivered in an insulting fashion. "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong" is the /ad hominem/, most commonly appearing implicitly in rhetorical statements such as "what would you know?".

Of course, you can't beat "you're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak", in times of heated debate!

Phil

[QUOTE=fatphil]Of course, you can't beat "you're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak", in times of heated debate![/QUOTE]I'm more of a "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries" kind of guy myself...

I know it's been a while since anyone posted here, but I figured I might point out that R.D. Silverman accidentally included in his quotation of me the following "It is clear that it is not fair treatment. It singles out a minority and
forbids them from having equal rights." which I'm guessing is what he meant to say to me.

I would argue that marriage is not a right guaranteed to us. (In fact, if you can't find someone to agree to marry you...) Rather, it is a privelege given by the government to promote a specific outcome (i.e. more children). The question then is whether or not defining marriage as a between a man and a woman is "singling out a minority" and unfairly denying them equal treatment. While I agree that defining marriage this way does exclude other partnerships from receiving the same benefits, I believe that there is a rational basis behind this different treatment. The rational basis being, of course, one type of partnership can and OFTEN DOES lead to children (which is a benefit to society), whereas the other partnership does not and CANNOT lead to children.

Now, if the rationale really is that the government provides marriage to promote child-bearing, then it is reasonable and rational to deny the benefits to those unions which cannot bring about children. In other words, if someone chooses to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, they are choosing a relationship fundamentally different than someone who chooses a relationship with someone of the same sex.

So, while we are free to choose either type of relationship, the government is under no obligation to PROMOTE both types of relationships.

Finally, I never said anything about PROVING anything. I would merely like some good EVIDENCE before jumping on the "gay marriages will not affect society in the negative" bandwagon. I think anyone familiar with this topic will admit that there is little to no evidence (on either side) which isn't born of bias.

I know it's been a while since anyone posted here, but I got the juror duty summons tonight. A couple of times I went because I was curious. (I wasn't needed though. Twice.) Now I just want a legal way out.

Pretending to be dumb is not a good strategy. I'll try being too smart. That is,of course, if I even get called. First I will postpone it for 6 months and transfer it from downtown San Diego to North County. Then I will go and will be sophisticated. I think nobody like smart asses.

I've read the Rosenberg trial minutes. Up to page 100+ (of 2605), the jurors are sill being rotated. "I've just remembered that I am of Czech origin. My father came from there. I think I will not going be able to be impartial."

I don't think the easy way - the one that most Russian immigrants take: "I don't know no English, yur honer" will work for me. Cheating is too easy.

[QUOTE] But today, no state would dare pass laws restricting the rights of blacks.[/QUOTE]Actually, there is an intense campaign of voter suppression going on in states under Republican control, though these target more than just blacks, and seek to suppress likely non-Republican voters. These include blacks, Latinos, college students, the elderly, and the working poor. The tactics include reducing the number of voting machines available, drastically reducing early voting, especially eliminating the Sunday before an election when traditionally, many black churches would bus their members to the polls, onerous photo ID laws to combat virtually non-existent, in person voter fraud.

Like Stand Your Ground laws, voter suppression laws come from conservative Think Tanks like ALEC, and tend to be supported by some ultra-wealthy persons like Charles and David Koch.

[CENTER]:rant:
[/CENTER]

[QUOTE=Batalov;371586]Now I just want a legal way out.[/QUOTE]

We are talking about trial jury aka petit jury, right? Just go and be honest and about what you do. In my experience, lawyers from neither side want analytic people on the jury - they want feeling people so they can appeal to your emotions. Engineers and similar seldom get through the voir dire process - I never have.

Grand Jury is a different matter. I'm currently serving on federal grand jury. But it's also an entirely different set of moral issues - one vote doesn't count as much, and you never decide if somebody is guilty - only on whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.

[QUOTE]…voir dire…[/QUOTE][url]http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechmycousinvinny4.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Batalov;371586]I just want a legal way out.[/QUOTE]I understand the sentiment but ...[QUOTE=wblipp;371743]We are talking about trial jury aka petit jury, right? Just go and be honest and about what you do. In my experience, lawyers from neither side want analytic people on the jury - they want feeling people so they can appeal to your emotions. Engineers and similar seldom get through the voir dire process - I never have.[/QUOTE]So we are left with juries that a full of people that like to be lazy and are content to sit around hearing male bovine :poop: all day? All the smart people -- the ones that can actually make proper thoughtful decisions -- are running away and leaving it to the other emotional "feeling" people.

[color=grey][size=1]I know if I was on trial with a jury I would prefer thinking analytical people instead of emotion people that are only responding to my scarred face, fourteen fingers, three arms and two heads, and deciding I am too evil to be free. Okay, I realise the latter folk are probably correct here in my case (but not because of my appearance), but I'd have a better chance against the "brainy" ones.[/size][/color] [color=white]It really hurts my brain to have to type "color" without the "u"! I wish this board would support "colour" also. :([/color]

It is a petit jury, of course. I (entirely legally) postponed it until October and moved the venue to a county court.

[QUOTE=wblipp;371743]We are talking about trial jury aka petit jury, right? Just go and be honest and about what you do. In my experience, lawyers from neither side want analytic people on the jury - they want feeling people so they can appeal to your emotions. Engineers and similar seldom get through the voir dire process - I never have.[/quote]
"I have no formed views regarding defendants' guilt or innocence, your honor, but I say give him the chair just to scare any would-be baddies straight." (It helps to repeat "the chair! the chair!" several times in a hyper-excited Beavis-style voice ... and if someone actually bothers to correct you by pointing out that the 'lectric chair is no longer used for executions, to ask plaintively "but couldn't we bring it back just this once, for old times' sake?")

[quote]Grand Jury is a different matter. I'm currently serving on federal grand jury. But it's also an entirely different set of moral issues - one vote doesn't count as much, and you never decide if somebody is guilty - only on whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.[/QUOTE]
Kinda funny how a GJ is really more petty (in the nonpejorative "petit" sense) than "grand" in all its major aspects, isn't it? (See also the old prosecutor's bromide "I can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.")

Being a fan of the old 1960ish [i]Perry Mason[/i] TV series, an interesting thing there is that the show featured almost 100% GJ settings in which Mason put on artful real-jury-style defenses. Supposedly this allowed the producers to save money by cutting back on expenses related to simulating a full jury trial, but that seems an odd claim to me, since as I noted the affectations and "audience reaction shots" are much more like those one associates with a full-blown trial. But the outcome is (almost) 100% predictable: The real culprit is identified (and invariably spontaneously confesses everything, often closing with a dramatic "and I'd do it again, dagnabbit!") thanks to Perry's out-of-the-box-thinking brilliance, Perry's falsely-accused (and often babe-a-licious) client is exonerated, and dour prosecutor Hamilton Burger ends up with egg on his face. But poor Hamilton, he never stops trying. We admire him for that, even if we don't respect him for his serial-loserness.

Napoleon introduced juries to this part of the world in 1811, and we got rid of them again in 1813 as soon as he was gone.

[QUOTE=retina;371747]I understand the sentiment but ...So we are left with juries that a full of people that like to be lazy and are content to sit around hearing male bovine :poop: all day? All the smart people -- the ones that can actually make proper thoughtful decisions -- are running away and leaving it to the other emotional "feeling" people.[/QUOTE]

In my experience, it isn't that the thoughtful people are running away. They are being turned away - eliminated through use of the veto in voir dire.