|
|
|
| Authored by: kg on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 12:04 AM EST |
I'd like to think that if I were selected for jury duty in a
case where I have strong negative feelings about one or both
parties I would consider the alleged violation freshly,
ignoring my personal feelings. Just because I don't
necessarily trust someone doesn't mean that I believe them
guilty of the crime at hand.
From a historical perspective, juries were originally
supposed to bring prior knowledge with them. The idea of
nixing expert jurors (particularly from the same field)
would have horrified English sensibilities. If a fisherman
was accused of a crime, they would literally seat a jury of
his peers: other fishermen from the same village or harbor.
They felt that justice was better served that way, because
someone who didn't have his finger on the pulse of the
particular socio-economic demographic would have no idea
what was going on. (Note: Jurors were strictly male in those
days.)
It's sad that in most cases, today's true peers stick
together. It undermined the entire historical purpose for a
jury.
---
IANAL
Linguist and Open Source Developer[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 07:29 PM EST |
I wouldn't rely on that.
Indeed, I
can tell you from personal experience that stating
that you're an engineer does
not always get you off the jury.
---
"When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
