Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

Gods bless you both for doing your civic duty, moreso for being
levelheaded about it.

It's funny you should ask, Tanner.  The short answer is, no, I've never
been called to jury duty.  The long answer is that I've known quite a few
people (I can add two to the list now) who have been called.  I would like
to sit on a jury, but I've never received a notice.  I'm beginning to
think someone in the bureauocracy knows what my opinion of jury trials
is...

Idunno.  I am heartened by both of your statements, but I'm not convinced.
 I realize judges are human also, and therefore also fallible, but I still
believe I would have more faith in three individuals with intimate
knowledge of the law (and in my ideal world (this is my stab at judges),
that knowledge is not simply the letter of the law, but also its spirit or
intent, and a sense for extenuating circumstances (ie. when the law no
longer applies (which *is* one facet of the Judicial Branch))).

If only it were as simple as writing a script for it...

-Alan

In reference to B's message:
> I agree with Tanner ... I too have served jury duty and found that my
> fellow members really wanted to do the right thing. Not only is serving on
> a jury one of the very few civic duties our country demands of us (along
> with paying taxes for citizens with good-enough jobs and/or property), it
> is also a point of regular citizen insertion into an area of government
> that directly affects us, an area that is too easily misused. You are
> aware of recent reports of prosecutor misconduct in which information was
> withheld so that innocent folks were sent to prison.... Also, jury
> nullification is not a myth; consider the effect of the tendency of 1960's
> and '70's juries to refuse to send pot users (and small-time dealers) to
> prison. Do away with the citizen jury and you have an arm of government
> that can pretty much do whatever it wants.
>
> ~B
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>
> Sent: Jul 1, 2004 10:05 PM
> To:
>       "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/";
> <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] [rant] legal outrage, setback for rape
> vic's
>
> Alan MacHett said the following on 7/1/04 7:13 PM:
>
>> I have little faith in our justice system.  It is predicated on the
>> trust
>> of 12 "peers".  In 18th century America, in practically any smallish
>> community, that concept works as it was intended.  The people in a
>> position to know one best, or at least have heard of you, are the one's
>> best suited to judge one.  And somewhere along the way we gained the
>> notion of an impartial jury (impossible, really, but the intent is
>> honest); that's an idea I support as well.
>>
>> But today's justice system is littered with the verdicts of juries
>> swayed
>> by emotion or the barest hint of a shadow of a possibly-maybe doubt.
>> Should I ever be foolish enough to find myself standing trial, I most
>> likely will waive my right to jury trial and trust my fate to a judge or
>> judges.
>
> Alan,
>
> Am I right in assuming you've never served on a jury?  Because that's
> what it looks like to me from the cheap seats.  If you've never sat
> on a jury, then perhaps I can see how you might think this way, but
> those of us who have sat on a jury don't buy it in the least.  Sure,
> there are some people like that, but the majority of people who
> sit on a jury, I believe, are people that are trying to do the right
> thing, consider the evidence and come to the right conclusion.  It's
> not perfect, but then nothing is.  It's still nowhere near how you
> describe it.
>
> Tanner
> ---