Jury Duty is slavery!

Post Reply New Topic

Only you could conclude that being told to be at a certain time and a certain place against your will is a privilege. That is one privilege I could do without. I have no problem with voluntary jury service, no more than I have a problem with voluntary blood donation. If I took you literally and to the logical limit I would have to regard compulsory blood donation to save someone's life as a privilege too. You seem to have an antipathy and a resistance to liberty and self ownership. Can you not understand each of us owns his own body and time and is not obliged to serve others against their will? Do you really feel elevated and your life full of meaning when you are the servant of others?

You do not owe strangers a god damned thing other than to let them be. Respect their time and property. Do not impose your crotchets and prejudice upon them. You don't own them and they don't own you. But I suppose that is difficult for you to comprehend.

ruveyn

And whatever size mentality you congratulate yourself to having your sentiments towards your fellow social members is that of an emotional cripple, a kind of wounded snarling human rat viciously sequestering your meager treasures and snapping at passers by.who look twice in your direction. I feel only pity toward such a frightened beleaguered creature.

[quote="Sand"

And whatever size mentality you congratulate yourself to having your sentiments towards your fellow social members is that of an emotional cripple, a kind of wounded snarling human rat viciously sequestering your meager treasures and snapping at passers by.who look twice in your direction. I feel only pity toward such a frightened beleaguered creature.[/quote]

If I were inclined to thank God, I would thank Him for being the mean son of b***h I am. May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob melt me down into a puddle of smoking grease if I ever to anything that is not rationally selfish.

I don't need your pity. I am not pitiful. I am the PROUD owner of my self and my time. I am the Wretch of Walter Scott's canto, all centered in self. And I am happy about it.

You want to be a slave to the welfare of others. I don't.

ruveyn

If I were inclined to thank God, I would thank Him for being the mean son of b***h I am. May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob melt me down into a puddle of smoking grease if I ever to anything that is not rationally selfish.

I don't need your pity. I am not pitiful. I am the PROUD owner of my self and my time. I am the Wretch of Walter Scott's canto, all centered in self. And I am happy about it.

You want to be a slave to the welfare of others. I don't.

ruveyn[/quote]

And pride goeth before a fall. Sometimes the damned book makes sense.

Seventy four years without tripping. Still counting. Pride need not lead to a fall if one treads carefully.

ruveyn

At even your advanced stage of adolescence you should be aware of how tricky the world can be.. While you're counting the cracks in the sidewalk some as*hole is throwing his piano out the window just above you.

I am a licensed pilot. I know how dangerous things can be or become. So far I have not crashed.

ruveyn

If you are truly against jury duty and feel it is a violation of human rights then move to a country that doesn't use juries. Simple. Just forewarning though, it's not a nice situation. I lived in Panama during Noriega and the cop, judge, and jury were all rolled up into one usually young, not necessarily wise man with a semiautomatic weapon in his hand and a nasty twinkle in his eye.

I am also a licensed pilot and I have not crashed either but I am damned well sure you as well as I have been in situations that only luck saved you. All pilots have been there and if you give the world enough time it will smash you like a bug on the wall whatever your IQ.

I am not a pilot, but I am well aware that a great deal of my continued life and health is due not only to good luck, but also to the generosity of my family and to the humans around me.

Two cheers for generosity and family solidarity.

ruveyn

Mate that three

I was assigned to my community's jury pool yesterday. This experience of mine was disturbing.

I intended to disclose my Asperger's Syndrome to the judge and lawyers, and succinctly tell them what risk this could bring to the court. Specifically, the risk is that I could make an error in judgement on account of being unable to relate emotionally to the parties, or being unable to understand (or even notice) their gestures.

I was dismissed without further ado. I felt insulted but unastonished by the outcome. Still, nobody acted unprofessional or discourteous toward me.

This could be a controversial thing to say, but I agree with the judge. Later, I have reasoned that jury empanelment is the only type of service under the sun which people with Asperger's Syndrome are unqualified to perform (in the American legal system, particularly). The only one. By that, I mean to imply that people with Asperger's Syndrome may still qualify to be judges, lawyers, elected officials, psychologists, sheriffs, and members of any profession which deals with the public.

It is still disturbing though.

It is - also disturbing, though is the thought that we might be uniquely qualified to stick to the facts instad of being swayed by the lawyer's salesmanship.

To satisfy "jury of peers", should not an Aspie defendant have an Aspie jury?

It means people of equivalent social or legal status. In the old days society was divided into nobility, clergy and grunts. Such division no long exist in republics. All citizens are, in theory anyway, legally equal.

ruveyn

I went to the courthouse at my scheduled time and reported to the "jury pool" room, where jurors were welcomed and indoctrinated about jury service. America has a "sacred tradition" of jurors, whose service protects and ensures democracy. Serving on a jury is mandatory if you are called and eligible, and it is your ticket to participation in government. And so on.

While true, I consider these statements to be well-planned social niceties from a government which needs some heads, and needs them for free. It is in the spirit of keeping people happy and cooperative while they are compelled to become the government's minions and slaves for a (hopefully) short number of days.

But if there is a reason why you aren't taken onto the panel, it is nothing to be ashamed of or angry about. It is not a reflection on anybody's maturity or ability to make good decisions, as the government and lawyers have invented a marvelous number of reasons why jurors may be disqualified.

There are the obvious ones, like financial stakes in the outcome of the case to be heard. But it might seem these days like you cannot be on an American jury if you hold any strong belief about anything. Bringing a belief into court might "prejudice" you. So jurors often undergo interrogation about seemingly meaningless things during empanelment. Even an aspie's belief that he or she would be a good juror, and that the selection process is inherently unfair, could fall within this purview of strong beliefs.

In the American system where lawyers try to pick jurors on the basis of their attitudes and ability to be emotionally swayed, it follows that lawyers are a little leery about the ability of their own juries to produce fair verdicts. So therein lie future disputes and appeals and, of course, more money.

But jurors who are not empaneled do help to get jobs done. The fact that the court has gathered jurors can indicate to the lawyers that the day of resolution is at hand, and it is time to stop dawdling and delaying the dispute. They must settle, or some of us will settle it for them. When the lawyers suddenly come to an agreement, the opinions of the jurors matter very little anyway.

I bought myself a coffee from an automatic vending machine while I was waiting for the trial. The cup said "Monte Carlo" and had a picture of some playing cards. Cute. It had me thinking about casual randomness, and also the potential practice of dispute resolution by means of formal games and fine bluffing. Court in a nutshell.

Anyway, I would never expect to hear a case where all of the lawyers, witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants were telling the truth. Facts are always a possibility in court, but I would not feel qualified to decide which picture made the most sense based upon a concept of how each person should have been living and functioning.

Truly, there are probably some easy cases for most aspies in the courts. But nobody knows in advance what the story is going to be like. And a seemingly small case cannot be deemed "easy and unimportant" by a fair juror. We just don't know how important some small thing might be in the worlds of the disputing parties.

An aspie may be a capable juror, like many others who get disqualified during empanelment. But something has to be said about the fact that an aspie's social blindness would usually (if not always) present a risk within the panel. And the jury pool was selected at random, with no attention being given to the special circumstances of any individual summoned.

The aspie should discuss Asperger's Syndrome during voir dire when the jurors are questioned about whether they bring any possible impediments to conducting a fair investigation. Then, the aspie will almost always be dismissed.