RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:49pm

Bill,

Thanks for the really informative responses to my questions, and especially for taking the time to actually do some historical research.

I had to chuckle about the body language. I've used that in the past to get myself off of panels, with great success—arms folded across my chest, and sternly staring at the defendant. Worked every time!

Larry

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 6:59am

Larry and Bill,

This is fascinating stuff. Thanks for the update Larry, and sorry I haven't responded till now.

It is a pit that you never got to make your statement, but I must respond to this:

Since nullification was never an issue here, I have only this recommendation for Objectivists who may find themselves called for jury duty: If you are open and upfront about your beliefs about free will and personal responsibility, the defense will see to it that you never serve on any criminal trial. You must be willing to accept that the defendant is himself a victim. If you want to participate, acknowledge that possibility, and go from there

If I was called to serve jury duty I would certainly make my views clear, but speaking as an aspiring defence lawyer, I would be only too happy to have a jury full of Objectivists sitting on the case :-)

That said, I'm inclined to the view that jury selection is mostly total trash and that with very few exceptions it would be better if the jury were totally random.

MH

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 2:58pm

Larry, I'm curious as to how you responded when asked if you believe in the jury system? Your message seemed a bit scrambled, as if you didn't edit it correctly.

Craig

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 6:53pm

Craig,

Wow! I sure missed that one! And I used to pride myself on my proofreading.

Interesting that this comes up again, because I've been mulling over how I should have responded. I'll get to that in a minute.

The defense attorney asked me, "You don’t believe in the jury system. Is that right?" I responded, "That's not true," and asked on what basis had she reached that conclusion. Then, I get the smile and, "I think you’ve been quite complete in your answers. And, by the way, I see you have a trip planned on August 27."

And, I'm gone!

Now, I totally agree with Bill Perry that the defense had already decided that I wasn't going to sit on that jury, and I was offered a way out that also saved them a peremptory challenge. Yet, their decision was based entirely on my responses to their survey.

More than "What led them to the conclusion that I didn't accept the jury system" was "Do I believe in the jury system, or not?"

Their conclusion was reached from something I had written in the survey form. They was no other information about me. After much thought, I think I have the answer.

First and foremost, I wanted it understood that I would make the decision of guilt or innocence on my own, based on the evidence presented, and that once I had reached that conclusion, negotiating merely to achieve consensus would be improper. There were several questions that elicited that composite answer. I've been through the jury "deliberation" process on four previous occasions, and in each case the pressure was to reach consensus, not truth. In fact, after my last jury experience, which I regret to this day, I vowed to never again change a single element of my decision to secure consensus.

In my opinion, by demanding such independence, I became a disbeliever in the jury system they know. But there's another jury system—the one that came with the founding of this country. It was established to protect against oppression by government. Juries were expected to exercise their independence, even to the point of acquittal when unjust laws were involved; and there were no rules of evidence requiring jurors to accept erroneous testimony as fact.

So, if I knew then what I know now, and if I had the nerve to provoke a real courtroom controversy, the better response to the defense attorney's charge would have been—"I believe in the jury system. Do you?"

Maybe next time.

Larry