Originally Posted By alexbook Nope. They called in more people than they needed, and I was dismissed.
Originally Posted By Ursula Here's another question: how many of yu get paid for jury duty service? My company pays for 10 days. But that is for only non-union workers. If you are union and you get called in, Jury Services doesn't release you from service and you lose a day's pay (or however many they need you).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Where I work jury duty is considered paid leave no matter how long it lasts. You are expected to report for work during any time that the jury is dismissed during regular work hours. Oh... we get to keep what the state/feds pay for jury duty too.
Originally Posted By LPFan22 I was paid by the company I worked for at the time. Served a week on jury duty regarding a kidnap/rape/sodomy case.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer There are no time limits where I work. If I was on a jury for a year I would still get paid.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd No limits here, except after three days, you are supposed to report what you earned for jury service and they can adjust your pay.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer >>Oh... we get to keep what the state/feds pay for jury duty too.<< RoadTrip, you and I may work for similar companies. We get to keep the stipend that jurors get paid too. Years ago we had to sign the checks over to our employer but eventually they figured out it was costing more to process the checks than the monies they were collecting.
Originally Posted By jonvn "jonvn, let me try to explain it to you." No. Let me explain it to you. Blue socks was an example. Please try to think this through. It was used to indicate something that you would not consider wrong, but that a government would, for whatever reason, make illegal, and give the death penalty to. It flat out does not matter what the law is. If I feel that the law is immoral, I will never vote to convict, because that is voting my conscience. I don't need to go to the lawmakers to decide this, and it doesn't matter if I did or not, and the law stayed on the books. I have the right to vote not guilty if I don't think a law is proper. You seem to want juries to act like sheeple. Just following along. But you don't have to, you don't have to vote to convict, you don't have to do anything you think is against your personal moral outlook. That's why you are sitting there on the jury in the first place. What do you think you are there for? To rubber stamp whatever a judge happens to decide is right? You are there to bring your own personal ideas and concepts as a member of the public to the jury. You are expected to use your brain. "breaks drug laws as well as many other laws like stealing" I don't care. It doesn't matter. If someone did steal something, and evidence was there to convict, then I would probably do so, depending on the facts. But just because a person commits one crime does not mean I am going to convict them of another. You should read that article I posted. People are easily manipulated and basically do what they are told. And yet they complain about things like the war on drugs. Simply, you don't put someone in prison for something you personally have no moral issue with, period. If you do that, you are just as bad as any tyrant who unjustly put someone in jail. It's a disgraceful way to behave and should be something to be ashamed of.
Originally Posted By officerminnie >>>...I have the right to vote not guilty if I don't think a law is proper.<<< I am no lawyer, but I just don't think that's true. I think the jury's job is to decide whether or not the person committed that crime. Period. Guilty or not guilty. Any lawyers/judges out there who can speak to this?
Originally Posted By Ursula jonvn, you just don't get it and I am tired of explaining. You don't seem to understand what a jury is there to do. I've explained it, now I hope someone else can jump in and try their hand. I do understand what you are trying to say but I am trying to tell you that you are going about it the wrong way. Voting not-guilty in today's juries is simply not going to change any law you find unjust. I'm done here.
Originally Posted By Ursula And I think that officerminnie is right. I don't think you do have the right to vote not-guilty based on your opinion of a law.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I am no lawyer, but I just don't think that's true." It is true, and it is your right. "I am trying to tell you that you are going about it the wrong way." Go about what the wrong way? Voting my conscience? I think that's exactly the right way. It doesn't matter if the law changes or not. Perhaps you should both read that link from wikipedia i put in here. Here is the link again. Perhaps you should read it this time: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ury_nullification</a> Here's more. Again, why don't you actually read up on the history of his country and your rights before you condemn someone for actually bothering to use them. It seems people would be more than happy in this country to live under a totalitarian regime. It seems to suit them just fine. <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult y/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html</a> <a href="http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html" target="_blank">http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn Heck, here's another. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,163877,00.html Whether you can comprehend this or not, this is the method by which we keep our laws just, and fair. And to keep the government as our servant, and not the other way around.
Originally Posted By officerminnie Oh gawd, you sound like one of those Constitutionalists whose main goal in life is to try to make a mockery of the criminal justice system. Those folks get thrown in jail for contempt on a fairly regular basis in the courthouse where I work.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm nothing of the sort. And I would not ever be held in contempt. Did you read the articles? NO? Didn't think so. You're too busy being so very offended that someone would actually engage their morality in a jury box. Did you realize that this is the sort of thing that gave you the freedoms you actually have? I don't care where you work. You don't seem to realize what a jury is there for. You are not there to just decide if someone did a "crime" or not. It's a shame that in this country we have people who simply want to let the government run ragged on the people. They are here for us, not us for them. You might wish to figure this out.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, and you know how to keep yourself from being in contempt? You keep your mouth shut, that's how. You play along with their game, and when it's time to vote, you vote not guilty. That's all. "I don't believe the prosecution's case." That's it. You don't blather to your fellow jurors, you don't tell the judge you think he's a jerk, none of that. People have just no brains at all sometimes to get contempt of court.
Originally Posted By officerminnie As a juror, you take an oath stating you will listen to the case and reach a verdict based on the facts and evidence presented. And yes, I did read your links and I believe they were all written by constitutionalists. I think it would be a very rare occurance for an entire jury in this day and age to decide person was not guilty because they felt a law was unjust. The examples in your links were all from many years ago. I don't think you will find jury nullification to be a common thing anymmore. And I'm with Ursula. I don't get you. I'm done.
Originally Posted By jonvn "you take an oath stating you will listen to the case and reach a verdict based on the facts and evidence presented." Did you read the articles I posted? No? Uh huh. In any case, you take an oath to based on facts and evidence presented, yes. And if the fact of the matter is that the defendant is being accused of a crime I think is not morally a crime, then I'll vote not guilty. It doesn't matter if the entire jury votes not guilty "in this day and age," although they don't because the government does not want you to know your own rights. You don't get me? Perhaps if you actually bothered to read up on this, and I have provided a few places for you to look, you'd understand what I was talking about. There is simply nothing to get. I vote my conscience, and that's all there is to it. If you actually think this is wrong, you have a very weak set of morals, and not a shred of integrity to them.
