18 December 2009

Or as Carlin would say

the best way to get out of jury duty is to tell the truth

If you think for a moment I wouldn't be that sort of frustrating for a jury pool....

It does call to question why exactly they have the random jury notices though if they're just going to throw people out who have honest and sensible objections that are not prejudicial biases toward a particular type of person (read: racists) and more are objections to procedural artifacts like who does or does not testify in a case or particular lines of questioning that go ignored, etc.

Why not simply ignore virtually any academic/lawyer-ly type in the future if they will remove people who have "thoughts" anyway? And if that's the case, how will that be "a jury of our peers". It sounds more like a jury of whoever will be easier to push around.

The first comment there, to use the plural of anecdote, points out a more pressing problem than a defense attorney trying to protect a client from belligerent questioning or prejudicial lines of evidence: prosecuting attorneys dismissing people from juries because they have "thoughts" that include the loopholes in our present legal system. Because as we all know, refusing a breathalyzer clearly means you did something wrong and must be drunk. I will probably have a post on drunk driving dissuasion in a bit once I think on it some more, but needless to say, random and non-random gathering of evidence which does not coincide with constitutional protections of privacy and based in part on police arrest quotas is not all that productive given that we can estimate that the DUI problem as a classic Pareto system.
Post a Comment