<p>MUSICTOAD…where do they find these idiots to serve on a gj?..</p>
<p>Ever been called to jury duty?? These ‘‘idiots’’ are YOUR peers!!! So hopefully if you are ever called to be on a grand jury - you won’t make the same type of decision that these people had to make given the information they were given at the time - not good to call you peers idiots - may be your butt one day.</p>
<p>…what intellectual basis did they have to render an indictment?..</p>
<p>At the time - they only had what was presented to them by the prosecution and nothing else</p>
<p>Wonder if you - at the time this all happened - could have done any better!</p>
<p>the one is an idiot worrying about the reputation of a stripper or worse.</p>
<p>i don’t need sanctimonious praise for our judicial system. having served on a jury most of the jurors are stupid and have had their minds turned into mush by our educational system, governed by feelings rather than the facts.</p>
<p>I have served on juries, and frankly, looking around at the other folks, I really wouldn’t consider them my “peers.” I must be the idiot, because somehow my peers have found a way to get out of jury duty, whereas I always show up. </p>
<p>And, having served on juries, I sure as heck hope I am never caught up in the justice system (at least in the jurisdiction in which I reside) because some of the statements made, either during the voir dir or in the deliberation room, are either so idiotic or ridiculous as to make me feel that there is little or no intelligent thought going into the decisions. Scary!</p>
<p>Remember that Becker episode where he couldn’t get out of jury duty–but was never selected for a trial because he appeared intelligent–ie carried a book? My H. has been called for jury duty about every 3 years–no excuses will get him out of it. So far he has always spent his week or two waiting in hallways, being questioned for a trial, excused and told to wait again. They should just have you fill out a questionnaire and if you are above the level of competence they desire, you could be excused before missing work for a week.</p>
<p>AG54 -… you are either so idiotic or ridiculous as to make me feel that there is little or no intelligent thought going into the decisions would have a difficult time getting out of jury duty…</p>
<p>Even your TX kiddo here in the state of MA while in college is eligable - and being a student - let alone an OOS one - does not excuse you. At least in MA we have a 1 day/1 trial system - which for most is a 1/2 day - unless picked for a trial - then for the duration of the trial.</p>
<p>That’s why it is called a jury of ones peers - so many folks on so many different levels are involved. I find being called an ‘idiot’ to be insulting and a very generalized statement - offensive - not all are created equal - tho they are still considered to be ones peers.</p>
<p>Sounds like a better system there in MA. People wouldn’t resent jury duty here near as much if they weren’t missing a whole week of work waiting to see if you are selected–then if you are put on a trial at the end of the week, of course you are on for duration.</p>
<p>Jeepmom, it at least seems to prospective jurors that when you are called in and questioned prior to being seated on a jury–that the persons accepted are always the ones who have no knowledge in the area pertaining to the trial–if malpractice, no medical people accepted–if product liability, no one accepted that would actually be competent in that area, etc. So if you are found “competent”, it seems you are excused—does that make sense?</p>
<p>AG …you are either so idiotic or ridiculous as to make me feel that there is little or no intelligent thought going into the decisions … correction of cut/paste</p>
<p>should be - in MA one would have difficulty getting out of jury duty</p>
<p>I am speaking of my own experience, not anyone else’s. In the few juries that I have served, the decisions seemed to be based more upon “feelings” than “fact,” and when the “facts” are pointed out, they are seen to be a nuisance, only getting in the way of how the jurors “felt.” </p>
<p>To me that seems idiotic. </p>
<p>btw, the only person I called an idiot was myself, and it was meant as a joke. I have searched through the last few posts and I cannot find where you have been called an idiot, yet you are insulted. :(</p>
<p>A close friend of mine had a similar experience ag54. She served on a jury–trial was a property dispute of some kind. The man was awarded a huge settlement–not because any of the “facts” leaned that way but because he seemed “nice”, was a grandfather, went to church, and flew a flag on his property. My friend held out for 2 days and finally gave in in order to “get it over”. Four years later, she is still irate about it and kicking herself for not standing her ground.</p>
<p>I guess then a good question to ask would be - who should jururs be - and how should they be chosen - for any type of jury. The present system includes everyone - again - our peers - no matter how you cut it - it comes down to jurors being our peers - no matter at what level they are - peers as people/human beings.</p>
<p>Everyone has the right to be judged by a jury of their peers is what our judicial system is all about.</p>
<p>As defined: peer - A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers. Therefore “everyone” is not included.</p>
<p>I would hope that I would be judged by a jury made up of people that could separate fact from hyperbole and make informed, impartial decisions based upon the evidence provided at trial.</p>
<p>It has been my experience that many juries are not made up of people who can do that.</p>
<p>AG…I would hope that I would be judged by a jury made up of people that could separate fact from hyperbole and make informed, impartial decisions based upon the evidence provided at trial…</p>
<p>That is essentially what everyone hopes for.
.
Peer can also be defined as - On the same level or providing the same function</p>
<p>Judge: “Would you be more likely to believe a policeman than a civilian?”
Dear Wife:“Yes.”
Judge:“Due to the nature of this case - a child molestation - would you find it diffcult to remain impartial?”
Dear Wife: “Yes.”
Judge: “These are not trick questions!”</p>