I was summoned and hated every minute of it.

Actually, in my opinion (so don't tell me what's wrong with it, because it's an opinion) .. Judge's have a job. I think it should included the JUDGment. I don't think it's my job to decided whether someone was guilty or not. I don't WANT to decide that.

Unfortunately though, I'm damn near prime candidate for it.
Not racist. Don't know anyone sexually abused. Don't know anyone murdered. Etc etc... lol

The constitution says you have a right to a fair trial, and that fair trial includes being tried in front of a jury of your peers if you so chose.

the unfortunate thing is your peers are more than likely ignorant of the law and easily swayed by people's looks etc, as estella mentions below. i'd rather have a judge who knows what he's doing than a bunch of idiots deciding my fate if i ever ended up in that situation.

And that is YOUR choice, you have the right to do that, but you also have the RIGHT to a jury of your peers, not a jury of people who love to sit on a jury.

uh, i know it's a choice and a right. not entirely sure why you're emphasising these things to me? i was merely stating that it's unfortunate most people are ignorant and stupid and that having a jury of your peers condemn you based on your looks and their lack of knowledge on law isn't exactly brilliant. hence why i said i'd choose otherwise.

I am not just emphasising them to you, but other people as well. People have a right to be judged by a jury of their peers if they want to, and frankly many people in America are ignorant about something. I personally would rather a jury judge me then a judge.

i've seen juries makes some pretty piss poor decisions even though it seemed obvious as to what the particular person's fate ought to be. the average person doesn't know enough to judge a criminal, or they are easily swayed by something trivial. i'd rather not let those two things ruin my chances of a fair trial. fair to me is having a judge, someone that is more competent at law, deciding whether or not to punish me. most people seem to think you have to have a jury, and they are ignorant in that that isn't the case.

But the whole point of a jury is the fact that many different people's points of view are taken into consideration. A judge is a person and like everyone, they have a history. They might know someone who was raped and so might decide a person is guilty of rape when they aren't, or might make other such rash decisions. That is why juries exist; to try and get the fairest result possible.

However, they still get to decide the sentencing. A good example of my point above is Cherie Blair; Tony Blair's wife. Last week, she gave this bloke a 2 year suspended sentence (meaning he doesn't go to jail) for breaking a man's jaw, because he is religious. Does that mean if he wasn't religious she would have sent him to prison? Absolutely ridiculous. That is the problem with just one person deciding somebody's fate or guilt.

It's a shame so many people are against doing it. Because honestly, when I did it, the majority of other jurors were total idiots, totally opinionated, forming prejudices before the case had even started. We had a rape case, and the guy who appointed himself as the spokesperson of our jury group was a loud-mouthed idiot who was sure the rapist was innocent and the raped girl was a slag, and he managed to get a lot of the jury to agree with him, by just being totally mocking of anyone who thought otherwise. I didn't agree with him, and I spent my evenings writing out the evidence to get people to see the other side. I managed to convince some people, and eventually we found him guilty - although most of the jury were very reluctant and thought he was such a sweet little guy. You should have seen their faces when, after he'd been found guilty, the judge read out all his previous convictions - he'd done the same thing many times before. They were all 'OMG, he looked so innocent and teary-eyes - he must have been faking.' Like, gosh, yo - he was so obviously faking! People can be idiots, yo! Like, seriously, juries need more intelligent people on them. Don't automatically decide you'll do anything you can to get out of it. Because, gosh, imagine you get convicted one day, falsely, or if you get raped and you take the rapist to court - you want some intelligent people in the jury, yo!

I completely agree. You will one day have to rely on the system for something, and if more people took it seriously, then maybe there would be a better system. JMO.

I know this was said forever and a day ago, but it's not always a 100 percent that you'll have to rely on the system for something. A jury is more biased than a judge is. Either you'll feel bad for the person charged or feel bad for the victim, either way, it's a biased system. Innocent people have been put away being wrongfully accused of something. That's the flaws in the system. (I know that was your own opinion)

The issue isnt you relying on the system, you live in America, and as such your civic duty is to do jury duty. It is mandatory even if you lie to get out of it, you have served your duty. It is very similar to paying taxes, that is the price you pay for living in America, as is jury duty. You rely on "the system" to uphold your civil rights, you want to be able to give your opinion, and have your freedoms correct? Those are upheld by the courts.

Luckily and thankfully, I've never been called to do it. I'm not one of those flag waving, I love this country soooooooo much! kind of people. When I pay 18 percent of my paycheck to help keep 'the system' and all it's "amenities" afloat, that's enough. Both of my brothers are doing their civic duty by being in the Army, I volunteered my time to help with the presidental campaign for Obama, I volunteer when I can and no, I wouldn't "lie" to get out of jury duty. I don't need to, I've got a kid at home who needs me and no one to watch her if I were to get called. And, to be honest, there's not that much freedom left in this country. Our rights are not upheld by courts, they are the government's (House, Senate, President) jobs. The supreme court is there to decide legal matters, such as Roe V. Wade etc.

IMHO

Sorry, the Supreme court is there to uphold the laws-there's no jury, just nine judges I believe. It's been 5 years since I was in government. *EDIT*

FYI, having a child and no childcare isnt an excusable reason for Jury Duty, I am not trying to be mean about it, just letting you know! A lot of women think having no childcare is excusable, but most counties tell you tough luck.

No, I don't think it's excusable, that wasn't my point, my point was I don't have the time to deal with stuff like Jury duty.

never been called. i'd probably try to get out of it. it's very boring and tedious [i've visited courts before on field trips for school. total snooze fest, unless you luck otu and get something intersting]. whenever my dad gets selected he gets rejected every time based on his occupation [a priest] lol. so when he gets called he just finds it annoying he has to go all the way into the city only to be told to go home again.

This is kind of off topic but I really think it comes down to the lawyers. If they can put the argument together in such a fashion that makes their client appear innocent then they essentially win. The jury turns into an audience with actors who are trying to manipulate the story this way and that.

Very good point.

I think it's a good thing that I've never been chosen for it. I'm a harsh guy and would prolly vote to give some guy the chair. LOL

I think thats why they dont allow people who have previously been sexually abused on the jury for a rape trial, cause we would all absolutely want him to die. LOL.

Hell, I've NEVER been raped...and I would want the sucker to die.

There is absolutely NOTHING more I detest in this world than a pedophile or sexual offender. They should all be chained up, tortured, beyond recognition, and then buried alive to rot.

And even THAT is too good for them.