HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Would you LIE in order to...

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:06 PM

Would you LIE in order to be seated on a jury?

Say you "knew" (believed) in your heart that the accused was guilty...

Would you LIE about your objectivity during voir dire and say you had an objective opinion about the case you were asked to judge?
44 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
2 (5%)
No
39 (89%)
Depends
3 (7%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

76 replies, 5388 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 76 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would you LIE in order to be seated on a jury? (Original post)
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Apr 2012 #1
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #6
Kalidurga Apr 2012 #2
bluedigger Apr 2012 #3
Kennah Apr 2012 #4
MrSlayer Apr 2012 #5
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #7
MrSlayer Apr 2012 #11
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #15
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2012 #24
Nevernose Apr 2012 #34
groundloop Apr 2012 #70
MrSlayer Apr 2012 #36
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2012 #37
vaberella Apr 2012 #52
gateley Apr 2012 #8
brooklynite Apr 2012 #9
closeupready Apr 2012 #10
brewens Apr 2012 #12
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #16
mucifer Apr 2012 #13
Why Syzygy Apr 2012 #17
LiberalFighter Apr 2012 #14
slackmaster Apr 2012 #18
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #22
slackmaster Apr 2012 #26
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #31
slackmaster Apr 2012 #53
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #30
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #32
hunter Apr 2012 #19
slackmaster Apr 2012 #20
hunter Apr 2012 #42
dionysus Apr 2012 #44
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2012 #38
alfredo Apr 2012 #21
slackmaster Apr 2012 #25
alfredo Apr 2012 #65
slackmaster Apr 2012 #66
alfredo Apr 2012 #74
fascisthunter Apr 2012 #23
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #27
fascisthunter Apr 2012 #28
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2012 #29
marlakay Apr 2012 #33
vaberella Apr 2012 #51
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #35
dimbear Apr 2012 #39
alarimer Apr 2012 #67
cthulu2016 Apr 2012 #40
drmeow Apr 2012 #43
ctaylors6 Apr 2012 #63
cthulu2016 Apr 2012 #72
dogknob Apr 2012 #41
uncle ray Apr 2012 #47
Ship of Fools Apr 2012 #45
joshcryer Apr 2012 #46
BlueIris Apr 2012 #48
3waygeek Apr 2012 #49
vaberella Apr 2012 #50
treestar Apr 2012 #54
Logical Apr 2012 #55
Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #56
MNBrewer Apr 2012 #57
MineralMan Apr 2012 #58
baldguy Apr 2012 #59
a la izquierda Apr 2012 #60
obamanut2012 Apr 2012 #61
HappyMe Apr 2012 #62
Rex Apr 2012 #64
ZombieHorde Apr 2012 #68
RebelOne Apr 2012 #69
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #71
cthulu2016 Apr 2012 #73
JI7 Apr 2012 #75
Skip Intro Apr 2012 #76

Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:07 PM

1. NEVER.

I would not even consider such a move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:14 PM

6. I know you would never... but there are people who've answered this poll who would...

What a strange notion... LYING to get into a position where you're expected to tell the truth...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:08 PM

2. I voted no...

because, I couldn't think of a situation where I would do that. But, who knows some creative person might be able to think of one. I think it is much more likely I would exaggerate the effects of something in order to get out of jury duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:11 PM

3. I report Monday morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:13 PM

4. I suspect I am more likely to be on the opposite end of things.

If my one experience called for jury duty is the norm for me, then I suspect I am more likely to conclude the accused is innocent.

In truth, I cannot imagine that I would conclude during voir dire that the accused was either innocent or guilty.

With that said, it is possible I could have hang ups with the charges themselves--like drug possession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:14 PM

5. I've lied to get out of it.

 

But I never knew what the cases were beforehand, that's why they make you fill out the questionnaire before you do anything. But if I did know ahead of time what case I was going to be assigned to I might lie to get on it. It would depend on the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:15 PM

7. Why would you do that? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:24 PM

11. Because they always call me when I'm working.

 

And I can't afford to miss work for what they pay. Of course, I've been out of work for nine months and have not received a call. I wouldn't mind serving now, I'm bored nearly to death. They'll call me as soon as I get a job and I'll have to get out of it again. That's the way my luck goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:47 PM

15. Seems like you and I have "Charlie Brown's Luck". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:16 AM

24. My public defender friend gets pissed when he hears of me or our friends...

...talking about "getting out of" jury duty. He says it's too often the right-wing law and order types who show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:36 AM

34. Funny, my right-wing DA friend says

"Juries consist of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty." A funny line, but very little respect for people mostly just trying to be good citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:28 PM

70. He stole that line from George Carlin (as did I)

Another one, and I can't remember who I'm stealing this one from, is to tell them you look forward to being on a jury because you can tell who's guilty just by looking at them.

In any case, jury duty is an important civic duty but I'm not sure if I'd want to have my work interrupted for a lengthy trial if it came to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:47 AM

36. It's not like I want to, I have to.

 

My bosses will usually put me in for the day I go to jury duty but they will not cover me for a week or more. I have no choice but to get out of it. Eight bucks a day is nothing. They should just give you nothing, it would be less insulting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:54 AM

37. I don't blame you.

I weaseled out of it last time around. I got called to the court in a northwest suburb past the airport. I wouldn't even begin to get how I was supposed to get from the city (chicago) out to Rolling Meadows. I'm not getting up at 4am to hike that far out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 05:23 AM

52. Exactly. Economically no one would LIE to convict someone...

especially a rational thinker also knows the evidence plays a fundamental role on decision making and you're deciding with other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:17 PM

8. No - it's not fair to the accused. I wouldn't want anyone to lie to be on my jury if I was the

accused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:22 PM

9. To do so would be BEYOND IRRESPONSIBLE...

...because you would't "know" whether the accused with guilt or not...

...because you would't have seen any actual evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:23 PM

10. I've done jury duty twice - both federal, one crim., one civil

I hated it passionately and love the experience, at the same time.

But I would never ever lie during voir dire. Makes no sense, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:28 PM

12. Depends. I've been on them before and through selection a few times. One question

I was asked was, had I ever been accused of a crime I didn't commit? Not exactly, but I have been accused of a few things I didn't do. A couple of time on the job. I assume the prosecutor asked that to weed out people that know what that is like. Once you have been in that position, if you're smart you understand a few things others don't. I was in a position where being accused and innocent, I could understand how they would think it was me.

I know I would be fair but more likely to demand a higher standard of proof that a lot of other people. My fairness would likely seem stubborn to someone willing to convict on shaky evidence. I can see lying in some cases to be the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:02 AM

16. So you MIGHT lie during voir dire? You MIGHT lie to get on a jury?

Be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:32 PM

13. My question was "Do you believe corporations are people?" So my question

was should only people who say "yes" to that be allowed on a jury? It made me sick when they asked me that.

It's the same ethical question about the death penalty. In states that have the death penalty the people who are allowed on the jury have to say they believe in the death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:09 AM

17. When I was

MUCH younger, I was questioned about a case that had to do with suing the City. I told them I didn't understand how a City could be guilty of anything? They passed on my seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:34 PM

14. I would have to purge my mind of any guilt I thought might be there.

If I couldn't in good conscious then I would have to request excuse based on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:09 AM

18. No, not ever. I would never lie to anyone for any reason. Rec for great topic.

 

And I'm always right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:15 AM

22. Liar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:17 AM

26. I could be a liar, but you can never be sure about that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:30 AM

31. Of course you could... and I'm never sure.

Liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:36 AM

53. OK, I lied. In fact everything I write or say is a lie!

 

Including this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:25 AM

30. Jury is back

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

personal attack

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:23 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I have to agree with the alerter as long as the accuser has nothing to back up the allegation. HIDE IT

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: if you read it it is part of a 3 post back and forth between 2 duers neither of whom seems to feel attacked in fact it looks like they are having fun.is this alerted because they wont let you play too?just more waste of time serial alerting.honest to god it should be a death penalty on du to abuse the alert system this way.how do i send this alert to mirt?<verdict by swampg8r>

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Nope, not a personal attack.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Personal attack? What is this, the ghost of Lozo? The TOPIC is about lying. Leave it.

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is a joke

Have a great weekend,
Juror #4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:33 AM

32. 4-2? I'm not spending enough money,

He's lying though, I can see it in his eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:10 AM

19. I've never been seated on a jury...

I show up, but they send me on my way, sometime the defense, sometimes the prosecution.

Come on now, I'm not that strange.

I speak English, I wear adequate and socially acceptable coverings, I bathe regularly, my parents assure me I was born on Earth, and my documents are in order.

What sort of jurors are they looking for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:14 AM

20. Both advocates try to filter out jurors who might be biased against their positions, or unable...

 

...to understand the issues intellectually. That is their right.

I've been seated on three trial juries, and all three were able to reach verdicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:38 AM

42. I'm fairly functional intellectually, but I've got some damned powerful biases.

I won't ever lie about that.

The death penalty is evil, the drug war is stupid, the prison industry is vile, and half a nation's economy ought to be socialist and the rest highly regulated.

Nope, I'm never gonna be a juror. The funny thing is nobody ever asks me directly about these beliefs in the selection process.

They're afraid I might break something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:57 AM

44. the one time i got called i was the DA's sacrificial lamb in order to tell the potential jury

members about the crime.

apparently, a dude broke into a house and stole shit. he wasn't caught in the act, but his prints were all over the joint.

DA asks me "mr dionysus, if i'm holding this pad of paper right now, is there any way for anyone to tell i once held it?"

"yes, maam, your fingerprints would be all over it."

defense attorney booted my ass out of the pool, and i was glad for it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:57 AM

38. You probably shouldn't sit with knitting needles chanting "guillotine! guillotine!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:14 AM

21. Complete honesty will keep you off juries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:16 AM

25. I disagree. I've been called for JD eight times and served on three trial juries.

 

At no time did I ever answer any question in court with less than complete candor and honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:52 PM

65. I'm speaking about the visceral. Being completely honest about your feelings. One

man facing trial evoked a real negative feeling about him. I voiced those feelings to the judge and lawyers and got excused. I wasn't sure I could be unbiased. One plaintiff I didn't know, but I knew his mother from my mail route. I knew I would be influenced by my feelings for her. In other cases I knew the lawyers involved. One was the great Gatewood Galbraith. I walked up to the front, Gatewood gave me a hug and said he has no issues with me being on the jury. The DA laughed and objected. I was excused.

I knew two other lawyers, so I was excused.

RIP Gatewood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #65)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:03 PM

66. I did that the first time I was called. I was 18 years old. The trial was a capital murder case.

 

I replied to one of the questions that the defendant's appearance frightened me.

They excused me immediately, and cleared the courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #66)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:57 PM

74. The other potential jurors couldn't hear our conversations.

If I had kept my mouth shut, maybe I would have been on his jury. That wouldn't have been fair to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:15 AM

23. no. but a reich winger would

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:19 AM

27. WTF does that mean in the context of today's justice system? Slow down and try to make

some sense...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:19 AM

28. haha....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:24 AM

29. "I'm a reich winger..."

You'd say that in a court of law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:35 AM

33. I was on a jury once where just looking at the guy

He looked like the type to do the crime...but by the time we were in the room alone I was leading the discussion to set him free. Total lack of evidence and by then didn't think he did it.

The old, you can't judge a book by its cover!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 05:20 AM

51. That's an aspect of profiling. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:38 AM

35. I would take jury duty very seriously and would NEVER lie


peoples lives are in the balance. It's one thing to vent here on DU but if I were on a jury I would strive to be as un-bias as possible and error on the side of being lenient than being too harsh in the event I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:21 AM

39. Wow. Rarely am I so far out on the wrong side of a poll. When the guilty

go free, those who set them free share the guilt for their next crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #39)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:11 PM

67. Bullshit

Better for 10 guilty people to go from than for one innocent person be wrongly convicted (or however the quote is supposed to go).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:28 AM

40. YES, of course! (But not in your hypothetical)

This is a basic moral question, as far as I am concerned.

Of course one should not lie about their objectivity on a particular case, as in the OP hypothetical, because that robs the defendant of his/her constitutional protections.

But there are cases where I would lie to be on a jury... when I objected to the LAW being enforced.

Jury nullification is an important part of the system.

The exclusion of jurors who intend to nullify the law is also robbing the defendant of an implicit protection.

For instance, nobody who refuses to issue a death sentence is allowed on a capital jury. That is insane. A meaningful jury of your peers is not a jury with pre-selected views on the propriety of the laws you are charged under!

I would lie about that.

A drug possession case? An obscenity case? Yes, I would lie to get on those juries and would refuse to convict.

How about a state that criminalized abortion? I would surely lie to get on that jury!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:39 AM

43. I'm with you on that!

they stack the deck against the defendant in those cases. The powers that be deliberately want to suppress jury nullification which totally pisses me off. It is, in many ways, our last defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:07 PM

63. would you want to

nullify every drug possession case? Would it matter to you what type of drugs or quantities? Would it matter if there were other charges along with the drug possession (eg a weapons charge)?

Would you lie to the other jurors during deliberations why you were voting "not guilty"?

I find this topic fascinating and am curious about your thinking. There's jury nullification because of object to law per se, and then there's jury nullification because of application of law in particular instance. I personally think that the former type of nullification has its place as a society's last resort of objection to a law, especially one that the majority of a society opposes. But I'd worry if it were a widespread phenomenon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ctaylors6 (Reply #63)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:55 PM

72. Additional charges would be case by case

It really doesn't matter what drugs or behaviors I would or would not personally nullify the criminality of. Just that there are some.

It is indeed a slippery slope. A lot of folks would nullify gun laws. A lot of folks have nullified crimes against black people. Etc.

But the idea of a jury of your peers requiring unanimity means that criminal law is not 51% vs. 49%. A narrow majority can criminalize something but to get unanimous convictions requires that almost everyone supports the law.

And I think that is a good standard for criminal law. You never want 51% throwing the other 49% in prison.

If all juries were representative and all jurors knew that no harm could come to them from not following instructions then it is hard to see how anyone could be convicted (unanimity being required) of possession of marijuana.

In that case, elections can keep upholding the criminalization but prosecutors stop bringing cases, because you can't get a conviction. It will aways be a hung jury.

When the state seeks to exclude the roughly 50% of the population who opposes that law from the jury then it seems like rigging the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:34 AM

41. I'd bank on being excused for being educated and against police misconduct...

...so I would most likely try to get out of it and avoid wasting everyone's time, especially my own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogknob (Reply #41)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 03:09 AM

47. it's shit like this that makes me fear ever having to face a jury.

it's quite disappointing to know that a jury of my peers would likely be a dozen people whose time has no value whatsoever. it's too bad more people who possess critical thinking skills refuse to use them when it matters, merely because a few days their time is so important to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:44 AM

45. I was not unselected twice in three years.

One for attempted murder, the other for DUI accident--both horrific.

It was a humbling experience. Seems like everyone
there felt the same way and seemed to be pretty honest during
voir dire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 03:02 AM

46. When I went to recent jury duty I thought, "Hey, I'm totally impartial."

Gun crime came up and at the very very end, right before the final juror was chosen (ie, me, I was juror #1 and they went from 14 to 1 in their questioning, I was literally the last juror), I decided to admit that I didn't think I could be impartial. I had written about being shot at on the juror questionnaire and literally two nights before there was a shooting where I lived but the prosecuting attorney didn't ask me one question about it. The defense spotted it though (had it marked on the questionnaire).

Never did find out what happened with that case, it never made the news, I guess it was too small time.

I have a new found respect for the jury system, in any event, and even if you think you'd lie I think your civic duty kicks in and that whole idea goes out the window real quick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 04:30 AM

48. Nope.

Seems kind of...lame to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 05:09 AM

49. Good timing...

I'm on jury duty next week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 05:16 AM

50. I think George Zimmerman would...cause I get the feeling this question has to do with the case.

Honestly, this is the most absurd question. You are not the only voting on a persons life. And that is no joke. No one can in know in their heart of hearts the thoughts and actions of another. Additionally who wants to be seated on a Jury just for economic reasons. I lie to get out of jury duty. Not to get on jury duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:37 AM

54. No, but I think I would try to be objective

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:42 AM

55. I'd say I was willing to use the death penalty when I am not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:52 AM

56. I do not support lies or liars....

under any circumstances. Lies and the lying liars who tell them are a plague on our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:53 AM

57. Maybe even the opposite.

Lie to stay off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 10:57 AM

58. I've been on two juries and was excused from a third.

No, I wouldn't lie. They ask; I answer. The jury I was excused from was one where a protester at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California was going to be tried for trespassing. The question was: Do you have strong feeling about the safety of nuclear power? I said that I did, indeed, and that I was opposed to putting a nuclear plant on an earthquake fault. I was excused. To lie about my opinion would have been stupid, since I was part of a group of official interveners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:00 AM

59. Why would I WANT to be seated on a jury?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:03 AM

60. No, not ever...

but at any rate it would require me to even get that far. I have a PhD and 3 cops in my family. Neither side wants me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:06 AM

61. I would possibly do the opposite

But I wouldn't have to lie to stay off a jury. I have never been seated, I am always excused by the Prosecutor.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 11:17 AM

62. Oh hell no.

Imo that's just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 12:08 PM

64. Like I would ever admit to that.

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:17 PM

68. Yes if I wanted to encourage a jury nullification.

For example: drug use, OWS activities, that guy that stripped in protest in the airport security line, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:22 PM

69. I lied to not be on a jury.

But I was picked anyway. This was many years ago in Miami. I was younger and blonde and looked like a bimbo. I gave stupid answers to the questions the attorneys asked me, but I guess they wanted a dumb blonde on the jury. Fortunately, the suspect plea bargained and I did not have to serve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:52 PM

71. Yes, I would lie, and here's why

 

One of the little-known aspects of US history was the adaptation of the jury system because of the inherent distrust of government being the sole arbiter of justice. However, the republicanist military/prison/industrial tycoons have structured the courts to veer greatly toward the state, with the ability to control the jury pools even though they convey the actual laws of the land in their judgments.

Having said that, in order to restore the jury to its INTENDED purpose of rendering TRUE justice, not just for the defendent but for society at large, I would lie to get on a jury. In fact, even if a defendent is guilty, I would render a not guilty verdict if I feel the law ITSELF is not just or is a product of the tyranny of the republican mindset. So, obviously, I would have to lie to get past the republicanist lawyers in this regard.

If everyone followed my own tenets, we would have a FAR more just court system, and in addition, an ability for us to understand that the republican Party is at the root of all that is reprehensible and destructive in this country, and in extension, this fragile planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #71)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:56 PM

73. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:13 AM

75. i probably wouldn't convict someone on non violent drug related charges even if i thought

they were guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 01:19 AM

76. Lie in order to get to a position of judging someone else?

I feel sorry for the 5% who voted yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread