Search Ideas
2293 ideas match your query.:
I think having a jury of your peers is important in criminal cases and they shouldn’t be done away with. Juries protect the accused from abuse of authority and unjust laws.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have them, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Yes, unless one find the action fun (like I find jury duty fun). If I didn't find it fun, I'd argue I am in the right for doing things to get out of jury duty.
One has the right to do things he find interesting, no matter how trivial.
Rand defines duty as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority." Can one completely remove duty from their worldview? In other words, can one completely remove oneself from doing things as an obedience to a higher authority, imagined or real?
If the authority is real, one might still decide to do the thing by rationally deciding not doing it has consequences.
they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest
Making it voluntary and with pay could fix this problem, but not necessarily. I can imagine a scenario where a juror is looking to get as many duties as possible.
There is no contract with the country. A contract implies consent, the freedom to sign or not sign. A forced signature is null and void.
[Jury duty is] part of your contract with the country.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.
Who would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
I think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
If jury duty were required for a free society to work, that would mean some people would have to be enslaved for a while to ensure freedom for everyone else. In other words, freedom would require some amount of slavery. That’s contradictory.
No, again, if you persuade enough people, you will have a diverse pool to choose from.
If jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)
Nonsense. If you persuade people, make it worth their while, they will show up in droves.
People are ordered to appear for jury duty simply because, if it were a toothless request instead, hardly anyone would show up.
By the same logic, we should force people to produce food for free, because there might be some people who can’t afford it and would starve.
Ironically, countries that nationalized food production have historically starved millions to death, while countries where food production is purely voluntary and only done in exchange for payment feed their populations best. In the latter countries, food is good, abundant, and cheap.
Yes. Juries don’t grow on trees. If you want a service, you have to pay for it.
But then some people might not be able to afford a jury trial.
People say the same thing when it comes to police services and the fire department. The solution to the free-rider problem is to not provide the service to people who don’t pay.
[I]f you’re on trial, you can force the state to use a jury to decide the facts of the case.
So it’s a trade off - if you have the right to a jury trial, so also do you have the obligation to serve on a jury for a person who has chosen a jury trial.
Otherwise, you get what’s called a “free rider problem”, people who refuse to serve on juries still insisting on a jury trial if they’re on trial.