The jury system seems quite ridiculous to me when I look at it objectively. Then I can look at the intent behind it and find beauty in its intentions, of the representation of the public and the people, but it feels centuries behind — though also, I have no better solution to advocate for. It's not just the alarming amount of idiots I have also came across, and how this can create disparities in random selection, but that they are up against trained professionals whose only goal is to be good at convincing juries, and that those with the job of convincing of guilt I think have a natural advantage (since we are programmed to cast a wide net to avoid personal danger). I don't have a better solution to suggest, but I wouldn't be surprised if both the % of wrongful convictions, and wrongful exonerations, is way higher than we like to think, and quite randomly scattered. I think it's an aspect of how we run the legal system that we'll look back on in the future once some better system (that I fail to imagine in any useful detail, short of giving over the task to technology, which doesn't seem a good idea to me) is developed and think "what?!" Though, it is comforting that in your jury there were only a couple of dubious parties and the process seemed to work well in the end. It's a system I *hope* works, and certainly does seem to in a lot of cases, but I don't quite understand *how* (short of giving a deep moral trust to random selections of a small group of individuals, or injecting a principle or moral authority influencing proceedings from above, neither of which I have). Great thought piece :)
In the final year of being under the age limit I finally was selected for a jury (cancelled numerous times). During the questioning I was honest and assumed that the prosecution would reject me. They must have used them all and I was selected.
I'll spare you the trial details and just say she was probably guilty but the prosecution did not meet the stated standard of the judge for proof of guilt within the bounds of reasonable doubt.
At the end they "randomly" selected me and a juror who was a bailiff in a different courtroom as the alternates and sent us on our way. Bad luck for the defendant. I would have hung the jury or convinced the jurors to acquit. The next day I read that she had been convicted.
The whole thing stunk, but I said I would spare you the trial details.
As a young man I served with a young Marine who had the words "There is no justice" tattooed to his forearm. I thought he was a cynic. I was wrong, he was a sage.
There is a viral video of a thief getting the crap beat out of him in a Sikh operated coincidence store going around. Viral because it is a rare case of justice and people love it. You can get (street) justice outside of the court system. The sound of the pos crying out is the best music I'll hear all day. https://twitter.com/gregissnacking/status/1686741312542838786?s=20
I laugh at the notion of essential justice being somehow a bad thing and refuse to call it vigilantism which comes with all sorts of bad connotations, designed to keep us passive and helpless within the system. For most of us, essential justice is the only justice we can ever hope to see. I won't watch the video, with respect, I avoid all such things, I avoid the news and etc too, but I am glad some real justice was meted out.
I wouldn't put a link to that kind of beat down on your story. One of the store men took and held him down while the other caned him on the legs and buttocks, no head and body. It was a spanking, but the bad guy sure did holler.
No, I looked but didn't find it. And yes, I think he stabbed the bouncer, unless he introduced some amazing new evidence at the end, the bouncer waa very believable as a witness and the cameras did not back up the defendant's claims.
Yes, loud music is dreadful. When I'm out and about I have ear pods with me, at least I can drown it out when necessary, pick my own podcast, music, or sometimes just the sound of rain to escape other people's noise.
It was a fascinating experience, not what I'd been expecting at all.
I've often wondered what it would be like to serve on a jury; reading your post was the next best thing!
The jury system seems quite ridiculous to me when I look at it objectively. Then I can look at the intent behind it and find beauty in its intentions, of the representation of the public and the people, but it feels centuries behind — though also, I have no better solution to advocate for. It's not just the alarming amount of idiots I have also came across, and how this can create disparities in random selection, but that they are up against trained professionals whose only goal is to be good at convincing juries, and that those with the job of convincing of guilt I think have a natural advantage (since we are programmed to cast a wide net to avoid personal danger). I don't have a better solution to suggest, but I wouldn't be surprised if both the % of wrongful convictions, and wrongful exonerations, is way higher than we like to think, and quite randomly scattered. I think it's an aspect of how we run the legal system that we'll look back on in the future once some better system (that I fail to imagine in any useful detail, short of giving over the task to technology, which doesn't seem a good idea to me) is developed and think "what?!" Though, it is comforting that in your jury there were only a couple of dubious parties and the process seemed to work well in the end. It's a system I *hope* works, and certainly does seem to in a lot of cases, but I don't quite understand *how* (short of giving a deep moral trust to random selections of a small group of individuals, or injecting a principle or moral authority influencing proceedings from above, neither of which I have). Great thought piece :)
I share your avoidance of those shitty TV shows of choice....
Your discernment does not surprise me David :)
In the final year of being under the age limit I finally was selected for a jury (cancelled numerous times). During the questioning I was honest and assumed that the prosecution would reject me. They must have used them all and I was selected.
I'll spare you the trial details and just say she was probably guilty but the prosecution did not meet the stated standard of the judge for proof of guilt within the bounds of reasonable doubt.
At the end they "randomly" selected me and a juror who was a bailiff in a different courtroom as the alternates and sent us on our way. Bad luck for the defendant. I would have hung the jury or convinced the jurors to acquit. The next day I read that she had been convicted.
The whole thing stunk, but I said I would spare you the trial details.
As a young man I served with a young Marine who had the words "There is no justice" tattooed to his forearm. I thought he was a cynic. I was wrong, he was a sage.
There is a viral video of a thief getting the crap beat out of him in a Sikh operated coincidence store going around. Viral because it is a rare case of justice and people love it. You can get (street) justice outside of the court system. The sound of the pos crying out is the best music I'll hear all day. https://twitter.com/gregissnacking/status/1686741312542838786?s=20
I laugh at the notion of essential justice being somehow a bad thing and refuse to call it vigilantism which comes with all sorts of bad connotations, designed to keep us passive and helpless within the system. For most of us, essential justice is the only justice we can ever hope to see. I won't watch the video, with respect, I avoid all such things, I avoid the news and etc too, but I am glad some real justice was meted out.
I wouldn't put a link to that kind of beat down on your story. One of the store men took and held him down while the other caned him on the legs and buttocks, no head and body. It was a spanking, but the bad guy sure did holler.
Still yet to do jury duty...anywhere
I think you'd be a good juror, you'd think about the issues hard.
😁😁😁 nah.. I'll be more interested in the free lunch and what time we could leave.
To be fair, loved the free grub :)
Do you think the defendant was guilty? Did you ever find out what decision was reached at the next trial?
No, I looked but didn't find it. And yes, I think he stabbed the bouncer, unless he introduced some amazing new evidence at the end, the bouncer waa very believable as a witness and the cameras did not back up the defendant's claims.
These AI illos are definitely improving! What a horrific experience - hilarious!!
Thank you, she was pretty memorable for sure :)
Yes, loud music is dreadful. When I'm out and about I have ear pods with me, at least I can drown it out when necessary, pick my own podcast, music, or sometimes just the sound of rain to escape other people's noise.