Trial By Jury

There's a county in Montana (IIRC) who can't prosecute people for weed 'cause they can't even empanel a jury willing to convict!

Actually, let's go even further... It's not even a political matter, it's a matter of freedom of conscience, pure and simple. If you believe a certain law to be an iniquity, government shouldn't be able to press you into being complicit with its enforcement. If they press you into a jury, you're fully entitled to vote your conscience.

I suppose the lawyers could simply reject jurors who would do such a thing, if they wanted to. It'd be hard... we could have jurors at the jury selection hearings testify under oath? Nah, that's too much work...

~shrug~

I'm not really worried about it anymore. I can't be brought to care about it at this point. I'm just kind of tired of the criminal justice system in general.

They ain't entitled to know what you think if you don't want to tell'em: Your personal beliefs are none of their goddamn business. You could refuse to give any indication whatsoever of your personal beliefs. They could still discard you on voir dire, but if they didn't you could be a rogue juror without even needing to lie to the court.

That would probably be the best, in theory. Have it be under oath, then reject anyone who won't specifically state what their views on the matter are.

Too much work though. I really can't be brought to bother with it, honestly. You can have your "juror's conscience," as if it ever really mattered.

@De Marquis: I don't believe in abstract notions of X action deserving Y punishment. For me, if an act - such as sending someone to prison - doesn't bring any actual benefits to society as a whole, to the criminal themselves, or to any other people, then there's no reason to do it. Punishment doesn't have any intrinsic value, in and of itself.

Also, 'irregardless' is not a word.

Fair enough, but you must understand that very many (most?) ordinary citizens do. It's the traditional approach to morality. And since we live in a democracy, we need to ensure that the justice system delivers verdicts that are at least compatible with the prevailing morality of the mainstream, otherwise it risks losing the trust and support of the public it's meant to serve.

As for delivering benefits, I notice you didn't explicitly include the victim in your list... that's restorative justice again. Someone who can place themselves in the victim's POV may be in the best position to judge that.

Oh, and this

edited 17th Dec '11 11:00:14 AM by DeMarquis

It's now considered a word because incorrect usage is so widespread, maybe, but it's still grammatially invalid. Also, it actually means the exact opposite of what it's commonly used for - 'regardless' means without regard for, so with the negative prefix 'irregardless' should mean with regard for.

Also, I meant 'any other people' to cover people like victims and victims' families and so on. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

edited 17th Dec '11 11:10:06 AM by cityofmist