So I got a Jury Summons...
- Thread starter Surferflames
- Start date
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
First of all, lawyers (and, concomitantly, the drafters of the US Constitution) use words differently than most people do. For instance, the elements of assault are (1) intending (2) to place another in apprehension of (3) immediate (4) harmful or offensive contact. Most people would think that "apprehension" means fear. But it doesnt in this context, it means understanding, like "I apprehend that this couch is blue." Or "I apprehend you're not very bright." So really, assault is intending to place another in understanding that they are about to recieve a harmful or offensive touching. Apprehension in this context means understanding so Pee Wee Herman could assault Mike Tyson even though Tyson wouldnt really be in fear.
The same holds true for "peers." Peers doesnt mean peers as most people understand it (like minded people of a similar age). Rather peers just means other citizens who can fairly judge the litigants without prejudice. It does not mean people of the same race/education/income/age/whatever.
Kell, no offense, but I wish you were born in some form of a repressive government, National Socialist Germany or Bolshevik USSR or Maoist china or something. Being thrown in jail without a right to face your accuser, without a right to be informed of the charges brought against you, without a right to a hearing, without a right to compel the prosecution to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without a right to a trial, without a right to be judged by a jury of your peers, without any civil rights whatsover, might give people like you an appreciation of the freedoms that people just like you take for granted and view as "inconvenient." You will sit at home and enjoy all of the freedoms a democratic republic like America has to offer yet you complain that serving on a jury is inconvenient. No offense, but in my humble opinion, you're a
ing idiot.
The same holds true for "peers." Peers doesnt mean peers as most people understand it (like minded people of a similar age). Rather peers just means other citizens who can fairly judge the litigants without prejudice. It does not mean people of the same race/education/income/age/whatever.
Kell, no offense, but I wish you were born in some form of a repressive government, National Socialist Germany or Bolshevik USSR or Maoist china or something. Being thrown in jail without a right to face your accuser, without a right to be informed of the charges brought against you, without a right to a hearing, without a right to compel the prosecution to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without a right to a trial, without a right to be judged by a jury of your peers, without any civil rights whatsover, might give people like you an appreciation of the freedoms that people just like you take for granted and view as "inconvenient." You will sit at home and enjoy all of the freedoms a democratic republic like America has to offer yet you complain that serving on a jury is inconvenient. No offense, but in my humble opinion, you're a
ing idiot.[quote name='pittpizza']No offense, but in my humble opinion, you're a ing idiot.[/quote]
Name calling?
And yes, I understand that "peers" has multiple meanings. So just because we are citizens we have the the ability to judge others? If all men (and women) are created equal why the need to select a jury, why not just appoint one?
Oh, because trials are competitions for lawyers and others. Don't deny it. I have friends who are lawyers and that is how it is. The system is manipulated for their benefit, not the benefit of anyone else.
Your opinion is not "humble", so don't pretend it is. You are a wannabe/soon-to-be lawyer.
And actually I am not aing idiot.
ing idiot.[/quote]Name calling?
And yes, I understand that "peers" has multiple meanings. So just because we are citizens we have the the ability to judge others? If all men (and women) are created equal why the need to select a jury, why not just appoint one?
Oh, because trials are competitions for lawyers and others. Don't deny it. I have friends who are lawyers and that is how it is. The system is manipulated for their benefit, not the benefit of anyone else.
Your opinion is not "humble", so don't pretend it is. You are a wannabe/soon-to-be lawyer.
And actually I am not a
ing idiot.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Yeah probably didnt need to call you a ing idiot, I did go on a little rant there. I admit it, sorry.
"So just because we are citizens we have the the ability to judge others?" Not "ability" but rather civic duty. If you can understand the issues and can fairly and impartially judge, then yes you have the duty and ability.
Juries cant be appointed. Who would appoint them, the prosecution/plaintiff, the defendant, the judge? There is too much room for manipulation and bias so we use the safeguard of a lottery system, and questionaires to weed out the "teinted" jurors.
"Oh, because trials are competitions for lawyers and others. Don't deny it. I have friends who are lawyers and that is how it is. The system is manipulated for their benefit, not the benefit of anyone else." I dont understand what you are getting at here? Do you think it is profitable for lawyers to go to trial and thats how they make thier money? One could call it a competition but the lawyers have nothing vested inthe outcome at all compared to the clients they represent, they are for clients, not the lawyers. The vast majority of lawyers are not litigators (litigators means lawyers that argue in court) and are transactional. Most lawyers, at least the ones worth their fee, will do everything possible to settle and avoid trials because they are so unpredictable.
I dont know if you're actually an idiot or not, but in my pompous opinion, you would have to be to fail to appreciate the rights afforded to you in a democratic republic like the US. I have very little tolerance for ignorant people who are ungrateful for the sacrifices and suffering made to protect the privileges and freedoms of "this great nation, of the people, by the people, and for the people" or some shit like that.
ing idiot, I did go on a little rant there. I admit it, sorry. "So just because we are citizens we have the the ability to judge others?" Not "ability" but rather civic duty. If you can understand the issues and can fairly and impartially judge, then yes you have the duty and ability.
Juries cant be appointed. Who would appoint them, the prosecution/plaintiff, the defendant, the judge? There is too much room for manipulation and bias so we use the safeguard of a lottery system, and questionaires to weed out the "teinted" jurors.
"Oh, because trials are competitions for lawyers and others. Don't deny it. I have friends who are lawyers and that is how it is. The system is manipulated for their benefit, not the benefit of anyone else." I dont understand what you are getting at here? Do you think it is profitable for lawyers to go to trial and thats how they make thier money? One could call it a competition but the lawyers have nothing vested inthe outcome at all compared to the clients they represent, they are for clients, not the lawyers. The vast majority of lawyers are not litigators (litigators means lawyers that argue in court) and are transactional. Most lawyers, at least the ones worth their fee, will do everything possible to settle and avoid trials because they are so unpredictable.
I dont know if you're actually an idiot or not, but in my pompous opinion, you would have to be to fail to appreciate the rights afforded to you in a democratic republic like the US. I have very little tolerance for ignorant people who are ungrateful for the sacrifices and suffering made to protect the privileges and freedoms of "this great nation, of the people, by the people, and for the people" or some shit like that.
Apology accepted. Thank you.
[quote name='pittpizza']If you can understand the issues and can fairly and impartially judge, then yes you have the duty and ability.[/quote]
But that's my point; being a citizen, or a "peer", doesn't give one the ability, it gives them the duty.
By "appoint" I mean, why don't they send out random notifications that state persons WILL be a juror? Instead prospective jurors are brought in and selected according to the desires of the prosecution and defense.
So you are telling me that lawyers do not profit from trials that require additional hours? Yes, I understand that most do not go to trial and I know what a litigator is (like I said I am not aing idiot). And yes, they have a vested interest in the outcome. My friend just won a case and he was a hero. My guess is that promotions are based on part of a lawyers track record. My point is that some lawyers will do whatever it takes to win a trial and the client is sometimes forgotten. So the system can be broken and manipulated.
[quote name='pittpizza']I dont know if you're actually an idiot or not, but in my pompous opinion, you would have to be to fail to appreciate the rights afforded to you in a democratic republic like the US. I have very little tolerance for ignorant people who are ungrateful for the sacrifices and suffering made to protect the privileges and freedoms of "this great nation, of the people, by the people, and for the people" or some shit like that.[/quote]
I never said I don't appreciate the system nor the country, nor am I ignorant. You seem awful naive to me, like maybe you just got out of law school. Yes, we live in a great country with a great system, if it wasn't I would have moved to Canada years ago. But it isn't perfect.
Why am I ignorant or ungrateful if I don't want to participate in jury duty? Why has my right to forego jury duty been stripped from me?
[quote name='pittpizza']If you can understand the issues and can fairly and impartially judge, then yes you have the duty and ability.[/quote]
But that's my point; being a citizen, or a "peer", doesn't give one the ability, it gives them the duty.
By "appoint" I mean, why don't they send out random notifications that state persons WILL be a juror? Instead prospective jurors are brought in and selected according to the desires of the prosecution and defense.
So you are telling me that lawyers do not profit from trials that require additional hours? Yes, I understand that most do not go to trial and I know what a litigator is (like I said I am not a
ing idiot). And yes, they have a vested interest in the outcome. My friend just won a case and he was a hero. My guess is that promotions are based on part of a lawyers track record. My point is that some lawyers will do whatever it takes to win a trial and the client is sometimes forgotten. So the system can be broken and manipulated.[quote name='pittpizza']I dont know if you're actually an idiot or not, but in my pompous opinion, you would have to be to fail to appreciate the rights afforded to you in a democratic republic like the US. I have very little tolerance for ignorant people who are ungrateful for the sacrifices and suffering made to protect the privileges and freedoms of "this great nation, of the people, by the people, and for the people" or some shit like that.[/quote]
I never said I don't appreciate the system nor the country, nor am I ignorant. You seem awful naive to me, like maybe you just got out of law school. Yes, we live in a great country with a great system, if it wasn't I would have moved to Canada years ago. But it isn't perfect.
Why am I ignorant or ungrateful if I don't want to participate in jury duty? Why has my right to forego jury duty been stripped from me?
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
"By "appoint" I mean, why don't they send out random notifications that state persons WILL be a juror? Instead prospective jurors are brought in and selected according to the desires of the prosecution and defense."
I understand your questioin and the answer is not easy. Basically what we are looking for in a juror is a fair and impartial system, who can with an open mind listen to the facts, understand them the best he can, and then make a fair, unbiased, and impartial decision on the merits of each side's case.
We cant decide who can be fair and impartial in a case until we ask the jurors some questions. This part of the case is called voir dire. Basically the lawyers are asking the jurors if they can be fair. We cant just pick who WILL be a juror because that person may not understand english well, or they may be biased for another reason (hate cops/insurance companies, or maybe a proctologist is being sued and their wife is a proctologist). There are a million reasons why someone may not be able to fairly judge a case and this is why you cant appoint a juror.
As to the common misconception that lawyers "pick" jurors, it is simply false. We get stuck with them. In PA it works as follows (other states are very similar with only slight nuances):
For a jury of twelve a "pool" is brought in and the lawyers do voir dire to decide who can be fair. Some will be struck "for cause" by the judge who independently decides the juror is no good (biased or racist or related to the defendant or knows the lawyer or whatever). After some are struck for cause, each side gets 4 "peremptory strikes." These are people who the lawyer just dont want on the jury for one reason or another. After those are gone that is it. 14 people are left with 2 acting as alternates (they dont get to deliberate unless one of the regulars is lost).
You asked "So you are telling me that lawyers do not profit from trials that require additional hours?" No, the key to that sentence was "COMPARED THE CLIENTS." They have very little vested in the outcome compared to the client.
You have not been stripped of your right to forego jury duty because you never had that right to begin with. Just like an 18 year old male doesnt have the right to not register for the selective service in case there is a draft. There is no right to forego it. Again sorry for the aggression, its a schtick.
I understand your questioin and the answer is not easy. Basically what we are looking for in a juror is a fair and impartial system, who can with an open mind listen to the facts, understand them the best he can, and then make a fair, unbiased, and impartial decision on the merits of each side's case.
We cant decide who can be fair and impartial in a case until we ask the jurors some questions. This part of the case is called voir dire. Basically the lawyers are asking the jurors if they can be fair. We cant just pick who WILL be a juror because that person may not understand english well, or they may be biased for another reason (hate cops/insurance companies, or maybe a proctologist is being sued and their wife is a proctologist). There are a million reasons why someone may not be able to fairly judge a case and this is why you cant appoint a juror.
As to the common misconception that lawyers "pick" jurors, it is simply false. We get stuck with them. In PA it works as follows (other states are very similar with only slight nuances):
For a jury of twelve a "pool" is brought in and the lawyers do voir dire to decide who can be fair. Some will be struck "for cause" by the judge who independently decides the juror is no good (biased or racist or related to the defendant or knows the lawyer or whatever). After some are struck for cause, each side gets 4 "peremptory strikes." These are people who the lawyer just dont want on the jury for one reason or another. After those are gone that is it. 14 people are left with 2 acting as alternates (they dont get to deliberate unless one of the regulars is lost).
You asked "So you are telling me that lawyers do not profit from trials that require additional hours?" No, the key to that sentence was "COMPARED THE CLIENTS." They have very little vested in the outcome compared to the client.
You have not been stripped of your right to forego jury duty because you never had that right to begin with. Just like an 18 year old male doesnt have the right to not register for the selective service in case there is a draft. There is no right to forego it. Again sorry for the aggression, its a schtick.
Killer Rabbit
CAGiversary!
[quote name='kell']
But that's my point; being a citizen, or a "peer", doesn't give one the ability, it gives them the duty.
[/quote]
Any citizen who makes it past a compentent jury selection process will have both the duty and the ability to hear a case.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but one of the important goals of the selection process is to weed out people who are incapable of performing this duty.
It doesn't matter if someone's an idiot or not, it's the prosecution and defense attorneys' job to present the case in such a manner that it is easily understandable to the jury. And also to persuade the jury that the defendant is either guilty or innocent, respectively. Most idiots are easily persuaded, for good and for bad.
Now if a juror say, suffers from mental retardation, or is somehow insane or demented, then yes, he/she can't perform their duty. That's what the selection process is for. And even if someone incapable of performing their duty made it past the selection process, no lawyer would let someone like that stay on the jury. They'd pick 'em off as soon as they could.
[quote name='kell']Yes, that's the theory...not reality.[/quote]
You are flat-out wrong. All people are created equal. If some people waste what they've been given, then that's for God to decide. It's not your place to decide who is and is not equal to the "norm," nor is it mine or anyone else's.
...I think I we may have begun derailing this thread with the debate though.
I'm sorry if I've threadjacked your thread, OP.
But that's my point; being a citizen, or a "peer", doesn't give one the ability, it gives them the duty.
[/quote]
Any citizen who makes it past a compentent jury selection process will have both the duty and the ability to hear a case.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but one of the important goals of the selection process is to weed out people who are incapable of performing this duty.
It doesn't matter if someone's an idiot or not, it's the prosecution and defense attorneys' job to present the case in such a manner that it is easily understandable to the jury. And also to persuade the jury that the defendant is either guilty or innocent, respectively. Most idiots are easily persuaded, for good and for bad.
Now if a juror say, suffers from mental retardation, or is somehow insane or demented, then yes, he/she can't perform their duty. That's what the selection process is for. And even if someone incapable of performing their duty made it past the selection process, no lawyer would let someone like that stay on the jury. They'd pick 'em off as soon as they could.
[quote name='kell']Yes, that's the theory...not reality.[/quote]
You are flat-out wrong. All people are created equal. If some people waste what they've been given, then that's for God to decide. It's not your place to decide who is and is not equal to the "norm," nor is it mine or anyone else's.
...I think I we may have begun derailing this thread with the debate though.
I'm sorry if I've threadjacked your thread, OP.
[quote name='Killer Rabbit']Any citizen who makes it past a compentent jury selection process will have both the duty and the ability to hear a case.
You are flat-out wrong. All people are created equal. If some people waste what they've been given, then that's for God to decide. It's not your place to decide who is and is not equal to the "norm," nor is it mine or anyone else's.
[/quote]
Your first statement contradicts your second... If all people are considered "equal" there would be no need for a jury selection process.
You are flat-out wrong. All people are created equal. If some people waste what they've been given, then that's for God to decide. It's not your place to decide who is and is not equal to the "norm," nor is it mine or anyone else's.
[/quote]
Your first statement contradicts your second... If all people are considered "equal" there would be no need for a jury selection process.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Kell, all people being considered equal, has nothing to do with jury selection.
As I mentioned earlier, some people may not be able to serve on a jury because of a myraid of reasons. Here are a couple (They are related to an attorney, they personaly know the plaintiff, they work for the insurance co. being sued, they don't understand english well, they can't be fair because they hate cops, they drive drunk all time so cant be a juror on a DUI case). Basically all of these are some form of prejudice in one way or another. Not racial prejudice, prejudiced as to the issues of the case.
It really has nothing to do with religious and moral view that all men are created equal. Whether this is so (or in your opinion is not so) has nothing to do with an individuals ability to fairly and impartially judge the issues the attorneys inform them about in voir dire (this is what KillerRabbit meant when he said "Any citizen who makes it past a compentent jury selection.")
You said "If all people are considered "equal" there would be no need for a jury selection process." Yes there is for the reasons I mentioned above...repeatedly. But just in case you missed it Ill state it again. There is a need for a jury selection process to weed out the jurors who cannot be fair and impartial.
If you want to start a new vs. thread about whether all men are created equal it would be a good topic of debate, but it doesnt have anything to do wth jury selection.
As I mentioned earlier, some people may not be able to serve on a jury because of a myraid of reasons. Here are a couple (They are related to an attorney, they personaly know the plaintiff, they work for the insurance co. being sued, they don't understand english well, they can't be fair because they hate cops, they drive drunk all time so cant be a juror on a DUI case). Basically all of these are some form of prejudice in one way or another. Not racial prejudice, prejudiced as to the issues of the case.
It really has nothing to do with religious and moral view that all men are created equal. Whether this is so (or in your opinion is not so) has nothing to do with an individuals ability to fairly and impartially judge the issues the attorneys inform them about in voir dire (this is what KillerRabbit meant when he said "Any citizen who makes it past a compentent jury selection.")
You said "If all people are considered "equal" there would be no need for a jury selection process." Yes there is for the reasons I mentioned above...repeatedly. But just in case you missed it Ill state it again. There is a need for a jury selection process to weed out the jurors who cannot be fair and impartial.
If you want to start a new vs. thread about whether all men are created equal it would be a good topic of debate, but it doesnt have anything to do wth jury selection.
[quote name='pittpizza']It really has nothing to do with religious and moral view that all men are created equal. Whether this is so (or in your opinion is not so) has nothing to do with an individuals ability to fairly and impartially judge the issues the attorneys inform them about in voir dire (this is what KillerRabbit meant when he said "Any citizen who makes it past a compentent jury selection.")
You said "If all people are considered "equal" there would be no need for a jury selection process." Yes there is for the reasons I mentioned above...repeatedly. But just in case you missed it Ill state it again. There is a need for a jury selection process to weed out the jurors who cannot be fair and impartial.[/quote]
But that's my point; If one person can be fair and impartial and another cannot they are not "equal", especially when it comes to serving on a jury. The law has a preference for the impartial citizen and therefore makes the two of them unequal.
All men (and women) are not equal for a plethora of reasons. Period. Should all be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law, yes. In reality are they, no. Should all lives be equally valued, yes. Are we all born/created equal, no. Am I physically equal to M. Jordan, no.
You said "If all people are considered "equal" there would be no need for a jury selection process." Yes there is for the reasons I mentioned above...repeatedly. But just in case you missed it Ill state it again. There is a need for a jury selection process to weed out the jurors who cannot be fair and impartial.[/quote]
But that's my point; If one person can be fair and impartial and another cannot they are not "equal", especially when it comes to serving on a jury. The law has a preference for the impartial citizen and therefore makes the two of them unequal.
All men (and women) are not equal for a plethora of reasons. Period. Should all be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law, yes. In reality are they, no. Should all lives be equally valued, yes. Are we all born/created equal, no. Am I physically equal to M. Jordan, no.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='kell']If one person can be fair and impartial and another cannot they are not "equal", especially when it comes to serving on a jury. The law has a preference for the impartial citizen and therefore makes the two of them unequal.[/quote]
Your first sentence there is kind of right but I think "equal" is a misleading and confusing word to use. We need an impartial person to sit in judgment, so a juror who can be fair and a juror who cant be fair are not equally qualified to sit on that particular jury. It doesn't mean they are unequal in any other facets of life, or that they can't serve as a juror in another case in which they are not biased; it just means they arent equally qualified or equally impartial. This is kind of semantics and only has to do with clarity but if you want to keep on saying that the law thinks of them as unequal then more power to ya (IMO saying "unequally qualified" is better because it is clearer).
I would like to think that all people are equal but experience tells me otherwise; either way I have no interest in taking this thread further off topic by getting into a debate about equality of man. Start a new thread if you want to get into it.
Your first sentence there is kind of right but I think "equal" is a misleading and confusing word to use. We need an impartial person to sit in judgment, so a juror who can be fair and a juror who cant be fair are not equally qualified to sit on that particular jury. It doesn't mean they are unequal in any other facets of life, or that they can't serve as a juror in another case in which they are not biased; it just means they arent equally qualified or equally impartial. This is kind of semantics and only has to do with clarity but if you want to keep on saying that the law thinks of them as unequal then more power to ya (IMO saying "unequally qualified" is better because it is clearer).
I would like to think that all people are equal but experience tells me otherwise; either way I have no interest in taking this thread further off topic by getting into a debate about equality of man. Start a new thread if you want to get into it.
bread's done