Jury Duty & Voting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

In 1670, it was a crime to preach the Quaker religion in England. William Penn broke the law. At his trial, in spite of Penn's obvious guilt, four jurors voted to acquit and hung the jury. The judge, Sir Samuel Starling, ordered the jurors back to the jury room, without food and water, until they "brought in a lawful verdict." After three days, Starling said he would imprison them. But one juror, Edward Bushell, filed a writ of habeus corpus. Ensuing action established the precedent that judges can't punish jurors for their verdict. The jury established freedom of religion. In 1734, in Colonial America, criticizing the government was illegal. But John Peter Zenger published a criticism of the governor of New York. At Zenger's trial, his lawyer Andrew Hamilton, admitted Zenger broke the law, but asked the jury to acquit since Zenger published the truth. Chief Justice James Delaney demanded the jury to convict," the truth is no defence," the law is the law. Hamilton argued, if juries can't nullify bad laws, then" juries are useless...The next step will make people slaves." The jury acquitted Zenger establishing freedom of the press. Milton Berle guest starred on an episode of Matlock a few years back, and I'll never forget a line in there of him saying in exaspiration"... Oh great. I'm going to appear before a jury of twelve people who don't have enough sense to get out of jury duty." I bring this up for several reasons: 1) A lady is suing McDonalds, because a pickle fell out her hamburger and scalded her lip,for $100,000. 2) Her husband is suing same for $15,000 for the loss of her affection for a certain time period. 3) Celebrities seem to be judged on different parameters than ordinary folk. 4) Teachers are afraid of students, parents ...children, employers... employees etc... Maybe "We the people" have we the people to blame. All those sensible people who saw through the lawyer's questioning, and gave them the answers that allowed them to go home early are part of the problem. Maybe all the ones left saw oppurtunity for themselves in allowing obvious injustice to be recompensed. The point is that we have a chance to do the right thing, to be a part of the system, even to improve it. It is too easy to heap blame on the government. They do in fact take more rope than they are given, but they are given far too much rope. While we still have some freedom let us use it responsibly. Those who don't vote at all, those that shirk jury duty and other public responsibilities are PART OF THE MESS! I will never buy the arguement that there is no one out there worthy of voting for. YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL SLOTH IS THE BIGGEST ALLY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO ENSLAVE YOU! This government "of"," for," and "by the people" can only be preserved, amended, or replaced by the people. If you do not vote you have nodded your head and accepted the winner. There is no way to escape the process if you are a citizen. The homesteading way of life demands a participation in the process to ensure the ability to remain highly independent. Please do the right thing in November, or whenever called upon.

-- Ed Weaver (edzreal@postmaster.co.uk), October 10, 2000


Amen Ed! Thanks for that reminder. If we all did the right thing, not because it was easy or comfortable or rewarding, etc... but simply because it is the right thing to do, we would be a far more noble and useful society! With little need of all the "help" from our government! Thanks again! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

I realized, when reading this, that my parents were always being called for jury duty and I've only been called once. The day I was released from the hospital after major surgery. Needless to say, I was excused. All these years, and I've never been called since. I'm a registered voter and a property owner too. I wonder why I've never been called? Hummmm.

-- Cheryl Cox (bramblecottage@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

I've only been called for jury duty twice, after moving to a new county each time. It seems like after they find out that I tend to think for myself, have little regard for unearned authority, and don't do or say things just because the media wants me to, they tell me to go home. Usually it quickens things up a bit when they re-refer to the voter registration card that put me on the list to be called, they notice "Independant" instead of Republican or Democrat. That fixes it for sure. They are too afraid that I will aquit someone on the basis that the law that the defendant broke is unconstitutional in the first place, heaven forbid if that should ever happen in their courtroom!

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), October 10, 2000.

There is an unwritten list of people not welcome on jurys and my name is near the top ! I was called once --years ago in Kentucky. The lawyer ask me if I could could judge someone guilty becuase of who he associated with ? I said --"only if he is associated with lawyers " I would guess that comment banned me from jury duty permanently.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), October 11, 2000.

Joel, you certainly do have a way about you.:~)

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), October 11, 2000.

Join FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association. From their website (http://www.fija.org),

"FIJA is a non-profit educational association whose mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilties when serving as trial jurors. FIJA also seeks to restore the political function of the jury as the final check and balance on the American system of government. It is supported by tax-deductible contributions and foundation grants.

Im a member.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 11, 2000.

On the other hand, voting participation can be used to legitimize a corrupt government, as can be observed by the forced voting in a lot of countries. Also, voting is not just voting. Its opening yourself up to social tracking for other purposes, jury duty, for example.

Our current system pre-rigs juries with institutionalized jury tampering. Millions are exluded because of past crimes. Tens of millions are excluded because of their non-criminal (thus far) beliefs. If a woman has been raped she can be forced to reveal initmate details of her rape while under review for jury duty. Last year I registered to vote. Within 2 months I received an order (rather arrogantly styled) to appear for jury duty. No problem. I intended to go. But I was first required to inform the court what my religion was, my race, if I had been divorced, if I had children, etc. etc. All information to be used for my deselection from the jury pool.

An aquaintance was once called for jury duty. The court ushered the people in in groups to tell them their obligations and restrictions, etc. They were then asked if any of them felt that they had a reason for which the should not be forced to be on a jury. My aquaintance responded "Your Honor, it appears that everyone in this courtroom is a lawyer including yourself. All lawyers are liars and I don't like dealing with liars, therefore I'd like to be excused from jury duty." He was "excused."

-- charles (clb@watervalley.net), October 11, 2000.

I would gladly go be on jury duty. gladly. I wouldn't try to be excused. However, I've been registered to vote for 20 years this year, and I've never been asked to serve. Never. I know people who are always asked, yet I never have been. Makes you wonder what's up.

-- Terri Miller (tchr4hm@juno.com), October 13, 2000.

I'll vote for the president when we amend the Constitution to do away with the electoral college. If you don't understand that statement, please go to this site and read the article. My sixth grade teacher couldn't explain why we do this and not until I was an adult was I able to find out on my own. Winner takes all is so wrong! All of us should cast 1 vote for a candidate, and this could easily be done (as we are doing it already, it just doesn't matter).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20001012_xnfoj_you_m ean_i.shtml This is a great news site which breaks many stories well before conventional media. www.worldnetdaily.com

-- JC (survivors00@hotmail.com), October 13, 2000.

There is a reason for the electoral college and it should not be removed. It is necessary for the operation of a republic and its removal would hasten our fall into a democracy. Please continue your investigation. If you found that article then Im sure you can find the reasons it was enacted and why we need to keep it if you truly want to know.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 13, 2000.

The article gives one of the reasons it was enacted, and I am well aware of what representational government for this Constitutional Republic means to us rather than a Democracy. I fail to see how this same thought line applies to electing the president. We vote directly on a local level and directly vote for our representatives, and we should also vote directly for our President. Our laws and other issues should still be handled by representatives.

-- JC (survivors00@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

I read the article JC suggested (BTW, I couldn't get there through that link, even though that's the right address). The electoral college is not working the way it was intended! We the people are supposed to be able to vote for the electors, but we no longer are allowed to do so. The two major political parties APPOINT the electors. We should either be allowed to vote for the electors or for the president directly. The two political parties have a death grip on the process, and they're owned by the special interests with enough money to buy their votes. I fail to see how this is operating as EITHER a Republic or Democracy! ARRRGGGGGHHH!

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), October 19, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ