🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Dix <look@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in message news:<3D62F935.7065167C@sig.please.because.this.is.invalid>...
> Scott Helms wrote (to sharx):
> 
> > I definitely agree.  The problem is that your whole philosophy seems
> > to rest on the assumption that a person's first responsibility is to
> > serve the state, not to serve himself and his own family first.
> 
> We have a responsibility to contribute to the state, since we and
> our families benefit from the state. 

Yes, but the United States was founded on individualism--the principle
that taking care of yourself and your family is the most important
thing.  True, there are also duties to the state, but yourself and
your family come first.  The state gets its power from the people, not
the other way around.

> If you think jury duty is
> a disproportionate imposition, work to change the law.
>  

The only political party I've seen who favors paying jurors enough
money so they don't have to be forced at gunpoint to serve is the
Libertarians.  I might cast my vote for their candidates in the next
election.


> > What's sad to me is that governments generally offer such a pittance
> > for payment that it has to force, at gunpoint, unwilling people to
> > serve on a jury.  I say why not have full time, professional jurors?
> > A juror is much more effective if he WANTS to do the job, not when
> > he's forced to.  Judges serve voluntarily, and there's no reason why
> > the same should not apply to jurors.
> 
> The advantage of the current jury system is that the decisions are
> made by regular folks, using common sense. Full time professional
> jurors would soon become jaded and thus worthless. You might as
> well let judges decide all the cases. If you think about it,
> the jury system is a good idea in the same way term limits are
> a good idea: it keeps the hacks from staying in office decade
> after decade. 
> 
> In fact, professional jurors would be much easier to corrupt
> than our current random Everyman jurors.

There might be a risk, that's true.  Perhaps then we could keep the ad
hoc jury system, but start paying jurors enough money that they won't
have to be forced at gunpoint to serve.