If mandatory service is slavery, what about jury duty?

[Danke]

Jury duty is a civic duty. Anybody should be honored to be able to take part in our justice system at such a level. Just my opinion.

+1

If more educated types (like those here) sat on a jury, we could over turn this tyrannical system over night. IMHO (sorry TW).

 

[Conza88]

+1

If more educated types (like those here) sat on a jury, we could over turn this tyrannical system over night. IMHO (sorry TW).

If they were allowed to reject the law completely, and usurp the judge (legally).

 

[danberkeley]

Jury duty is a civic duty. Anybody should be honored to be able to take part in our justice system at such a level. Just my opinion.

:bunchies:

I disagree with you.

+1

If more educated types (like those here) sat on a jury, we could over turn this tyrannical system over night. IMHO (sorry TW).

But Iagree with you.

 

[nodope0695]

Jury duty is slavery. Anyone who says otherwise doest know what slavery is.

UPDATE: Even if you gat paid, it is still slavery. The African slaves received food and housing. Were they not slaves because they received some form of compensation?

My friend, there are somethings required of us as citizens of the United States. By performing jury duty, we are helping to fulfill the Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. The same right you would enjoy if you ever were accused of a crime. I'm sure if you were ever in that situation, you'd hope that people didn't shuck their responsibility because the just, "didn't wanna."

I understand your point, but that's life my friend. Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to. Get used to it. The world doesn't owe you shit.

I don't know your profession, but I could argue that your job is slavery as well. If you don't got to work, you can't pay the bills, or buy food and clothing. Therefore, you are FORCED to work in order to enjoy the standard of living you have. Even in Comunist countries, people must work.

In the words of JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for you county." In other words, quit being selfish.

I disagree with you.

It's no matter to me if you disagree with me or not. I've stated a FACT. Rent 12 Angry Men, Google "Citizenship," talk to an old person of the "Greatest Generation" and learn something about how to be a REAL citizen of the United States. And, don't forget that people died to guarantee your Constitutional rights (including trial by a jury of your peers), and lots of them were drafted. What are the chances you'll get mamed, or killed while sitting on a jury? Wake up, dude.

 

[Danke]

If they were allowed to reject the law completely, and usurp the judge (legally).

Yes, jury nullification. Judges hate that. The real fourth estate. We The People.

 

[danberkeley]

My friend, there are somethings required of us as citizens of the United States. By performing jury duty, we are helping to fulfill the Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. The same right you would enjoy if you ever were accused of a crime. I'm sure if you were ever in that situation, you'd hope that people didn't shuck their responsibility because the just, "didn't wanna."

So you promote slavery.

I understand your point, but that's life my friend. Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to. Get used to it. The world doesn't owe you shit.

The world doesn't owe me shit, except those who me money by contractual agreement, and I dont owe you or this country shit either, except those I owe money to by contractual agreement.

I don't know your profession, but I could argue that your job is slavery as well. If you don't got to work, you can't pay the bills, or buy food and clothing. Therefore, you are FORCED to work in order to enjoy the standard of living you have. Even in Comunist countries, people must work.

If I choose to not work and starve to death, no one but myself forced me to do so. No one else is forcing me to do anything. Hopefully, you can see the difference.

In the words of JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for you county." In other words, quit being selfish.

It's no matter to me if you disagree with me or not. I've stated a FACT.

It is also a fact that your avatar suits you. Oooooooooh! Now what? Huh? Huh? Yeah!

Rent 12 Angry Men, Google "Citizenship," talk to an old person of the "Greatest Generation" and learn something about how to be a REAL citizen of the United States. And, don't forget that people died to guarantee your Constitutional rights (including trial by a jury of your peers), and lots of them were drafted. What are the chances you'll get mamed, or killed while sitting on a jury? Wake up, dude.

I could run circles around that argument but, instead, I will let bunchies do the running. Go bunchies! Go! :bunchies:

 

[Mini-Me]

Jury duty is indeed involuntary servitude, and there are much better ways of going about it. If nothing else, people picked for jury duty who really don't want to do it should be allowed to opt out if they want. After all, a juror who really doesn't want to be there is not necessarily a reliable juror in the first place. If jurors were paid market wages, there probably wouldn't be many people opting out anyway. Heck, a purely volunteer-based system could be instituted, as long as it prevented people from being "professional jurors."

That said, changing the jury duty system is quite a low priority for me. The purpose of jury duty is solely to protect people's rights, so I'm willing to turn a blind eye to it while there are much bigger issues at stake. Because the purpose of jury duty is to protect people's individual rights and fulfill a legitimate duty of government (despite the relatively unjust means), it's nowhere near as egregious an abuse as forcing people into an arbitrary amount of involuntary servitude for some arbitrary collectivist cause (such as involuntary community service, involuntary civilian service for the government, etc.).

Personally, I always looked forward to experiencing jury duty, and I was glad when my name came up. I can see why it can be a huge hardship for others though, and anyway, I'd greatly prefer a voluntary system just out of principle.

 

[danberkeley]

Jury duty is indeed involuntary servitude, and there are much better ways of going about it. If nothing else, people picked for jury duty who really don't want to do it should be allowed to opt out if they want. After all, a juror who really doesn't want to be there is not necessarily a reliable juror in the first place. If jurors were paid market wages, there probably wouldn't be many people opting out anyway. Heck, a purely volunteer-based system could be instituted, as long as it prevented people from being "professional jurors."

That said, changing the jury duty system is quite a low priority for me. The purpose of jury duty is solely to protect people's rights, so I'm willing to turn a blind eye to it while there are much bigger issues at stake. Because the purpose of jury duty is to protect people's individual rights and fulfill a legitimate duty of government (despite the relatively unjust means), it's nowhere near as egregious an abuse as forcing people into an arbitrary amount of involuntary servitude for some arbitrary collectivist cause.

Personally, I always looked forward to experience jury duty, and I was glad when my name came up. I can see why it can be a huge hardship for others though, and anyway, I'd greatly prefer a voluntary system just out of principle.

Take that ^^^^^^^^ nodope0695

 

[Danke]

Jury duty is indeed involuntary servitude...

Many here like to make the claim that such and such law applies to them.

Has anyone done the research?

Please show me the Act of Congress that makes it so. And the underlying Statue.

 

[Mini-Me]

Many here like to make the claim that such and such law applies to them.

Has anyone done the research?

Please show me the Act of Congress that makes it so. And the underlying Statue.

Could you clarify your question?

EDIT: Going back through the thread, I noticed you made the claim that the law does not actually force people to serve on a jury. If you're correct, then the government sure as hell does a good job scaring people into thinking otherwise. Do I know the precise wording of every law on the books? Of course not, and neither does anybody, even experienced lawyers. Therefore, allow me to qualify my previous post: ASSUMING jury duty is as mandatory as everyone thinks it is and there's not some secret loophole in the law that gives an "easy out" for complete non-responders, then yes, it's involuntary servitude. Plus, the precise wording of jury duty laws seems to vary from state to state and even locally, so with all of those variations, I'd be greatly surprised if there's a loophole in every single one.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

The reason why jury duty is not challenged is because only smart people know enough about the ground upon which it can be challenged.

Smart people never last long enough in the selection process to challenge it.

If you are not sitting there with glazed eyes and drool hanging out of your mouth, you are immediately released.

If that's not enough, tell them you believe that a jury has the right to judge both the case AND the law.

Heck for that they might take you downstairs and put a bullet in your head.

 

[Ozwest]

Might as well compare farting with shitting in your pants...

 

[Mini-Me]

The reason why jury duty is not challenged is because only smart people know enough about the ground upon which it can be challenged.

Smart people never last long enough in the selection process to challenge it.

If you are not sitting there with glazed eyes and drool hanging out of your mouth, you are immediately released.

If that's not enough, tell them you believe that a jury has the right to judge both the case AND the law.

Heck for that they might take you downstairs and put a bullet in your head.

Hahahah...well yes, anyone who really doesn't want to do it can always excuse themselves during voir dire by volunteering ridiculous statements and acting like a belligerent racist/sexist/etc. or something. That still doesn't get anyone out of showing up in the first place though, and you can go many days without ever being called on for a case (just milling about in the waiting room). The case I ended up sitting on was a civil suit (a slip and fall case), and jury nullification wasn't an issue...but I always wonder if I'd be able to make it through voir dire on a marijuana possession case or something like that. Before going in for jury duty, I certainly did my due diligence and spent some time on the FIJA website.

 

[Danke]

Could you clarify your question?

EDIT: Going back through the thread, I noticed you made the claim that the law does not actually force people to serve on a jury. If you're correct, then the government sure as hell does a good job scaring people into thinking otherwise. Do I know the precise wording of every law on the books? Of course not, and neither does anybody, even experienced lawyers. Therefore, allow me to qualify my previous post: ASSUMING jury duty is as mandatory as everyone thinks it is and there's not some secret loophole in the law that gives an "easy out" for complete non-responders, then yes, it's involuntary servitude. Plus, the precise wording of jury duty laws seems to vary from state to state and even locally, so with all of those variations, I'd be greatly surprised if there's a loophole in every single one.

Fair enough. I am weary of those that presume such and such law pertains to them.

It is up to "We The People" to keep our representatives in check. I think we are all guilty in that.

If one is going to speak with authority as to the law, please be able to back it up.

A cop out is to say, "well they have the guns..." But not even try to stand up for your rights.

Especially egregious is one that asserts a position with no legal basis for their claims.

 

[Mini-Me]

Fair enough. I am weary of those that presume such and such law pertains to them.

It is up to "We The People" to keep our representatives in check. I think we are all guilty in that.

If one is going to speak with authority as to the law, please be able to back it up.

A cop out is to say, "well they have the guns..." But not even try to stand up for your rights.

Especially egregious is one that asserts a position with no legal basis for their claims.

Honestly, I didn't even know the mandatory nature of jury duty was even contested or in doubt at the time I made my post. From the standpoint of this thread, I never intended to give a legal position whatsoever - just a philosophical position.

 

[danberkeley]

Fair enough. I am weary of those that presume such and such law pertains to them.

It is up to "We The People" to keep our representatives in check. I think we are all guilty in that.

If one is going to speak with authority as to the law, please be able to back it up.

A cop out is to say, "well they have the guns..." But not even try to stand up for your rights.

Especially egregious is one that asserts a position with no legal basis for their claims.

I claim ignorance as well. I was going off what I stated on the Summons for Jury Duty I received. But if there is some case or statute hidden somewhere out there, I didnt know about it. And I am weary of those say that it is "our duty", or "we owe it to our country", "this country doesnt owe you shit", etc.

 

[nodope0695]

Take that ^^^^^^^^ nodope0695

You, friend are a punk - part of the problem with the country, NOT the solution. You'd rather show your disdain for our system by advocating anarchy instead of trying add to it, or make it better. You've grown up in a nanny state, where everything you wanted you got. Where you weren't taught squat about self sacrifice, giving of yourself, or about what it means to be a true CITIZEN of the United States.

You probably believe all that U.S. Citizenship requires of you is voting every couple of years, and taking Political Science in college. You're wrong if that is so.

I'd guess if you came upon a peice of trash on the ground next to a trash can, you'd walk right past it.

I bet you'd ignore an elderly woman (or man) having a hard time with her groceries.

I bet you'd drive past a car accident you just witnessed, or do nothing as a person in a bar were getting beat up (besides film it with your cellphone and post it on Youtube).

Your veiw of "compulsory" service on a jury is some perverted idea of how the government wants to endenture you.

My intuition tells me you have no sense of service, or duty, integrity, honor, or courage (look 'em up if in doubt). I feel sorry that you would compare serving on a jury, an act that protects the rights of others, and yourself, to slavery. You sir, are just plain wrong in your assessment. Is being subpoena'd as a witness slavery? It's compulsary. Is following the laws on the highway slavery? It's also compulsary.

There are some things we must do as Citizens of this Nation. A Nation built by people who did things they may not have wanted to do - some who were compulsed into action, and those who died as a result. Did the people of the 13 origional colonies want to go to war with England? I think not, but the situation compulsed them to do so, and many were paid pennies, if at all, for their sacrifice.

I know something of service (military), and of volunteerism (Fire/EMT). I do these things because they help society, and allow me to give of myself that others might be helped. Have you ever done that? Or do you only do something if you're given some sort of return? I'd guess the latter.

If you think there is a better way, lobby your local and state government to come up with ways of changing it instead of bitching about it here on this forum and sounding like a spoiled brat rich kid. Try being proactive instead of a crybaby.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Jury duty is indeed involuntary servitude, and there are much better ways of going about it. If nothing else, people picked for jury duty who really don't want to do it should be allowed to opt out if they want. After all, a juror who really doesn't want to be there is not necessarily a reliable juror in the first place. If jurors were paid market wages, there probably wouldn't be many people opting out anyway. Heck, a purely volunteer-based system could be instituted, as long as it prevented people from being "professional jurors."

That said, changing the jury duty system is quite a low priority for me. The purpose of jury duty is solely to protect people's rights, so I'm willing to turn a blind eye to it while there are much bigger issues at stake. Because the purpose of jury duty is to protect people's individual rights and fulfill a legitimate duty of government (despite the relatively unjust means), it's nowhere near as egregious an abuse as forcing people into an arbitrary amount of involuntary servitude for some arbitrary collectivist cause (such as involuntary community service, involuntary civilian service for the government, etc.).

Personally, I always looked forward to experiencing jury duty, and I was glad when my name came up. I can see why it can be a huge hardship for others though, and anyway, I'd greatly prefer a voluntary system just out of principle.

If it was only a volunteer activity, you'd get even more of the bottom of the barrel than we are now. Juries are supposed to be constructed of your peers; not just those who consider $12/day to be a financial boon.

When considering this, think about who you would want on the jury if you ever found yourself as the defendant in a court of law.

 

[nodope0695]

If it was only a volunteer activity, you'd get even more of the bottom of the barrel than we are now. Juries are supposed to be constructed of your peers; not just those who consider $12/day to be a financial boon.

When considering this, think about who you would want on the jury if you ever found yourself as the defendant in a court of law.

+1

And I present you with: :bunchies:

 

[Pennsylvania]

I side with danberkely on this issue. Any way you look at it, it's slavery.