🚀 go-pugleaf

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

I "contribute" over half of my wages, in taxes of one type or another.
I don't get much of a return. Others do however.

> 
> > 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. 

They do, it's called jury nullification.

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.

I am already corrupted. I'm pissed at them for taking my money. I can't
even afford a my own home.
And jury duty, in which I lose even more money, puts me further and
further behind.


> 
> --
> mjdix@sonic.net

Mike
000000000000000