Juror Jailed For Friending Defendant on Facebook

[OutHouse]

This has always bothered me. I would guarantee that the majority of jurors are not my peers. Why do we want uneducated people deciding cases? Why not have a group of experts determine the appropriate outcome? Experts may have some bias in either direction, but they will have breadth and depth of knowledge in the topic and also recognize where the defense or prosecution are trying to sling bullshit. I'd rather have people who care make a decision, rather than Cletus the slack-jawed yokel whom just wants to get back to watching Jersey Shore.

a panel who sees case after case after case would care about you? lol

your system would have no room for trial by jury. for the amount of cases that are heard at local, county, state and federal levels you need 10's of thousands of panel members as full time jobs.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd love to get jury duty - I think it would be an interesting experience (esp. as an attorney whose work never involves a trial court). Despite my many years being on the list of registered voters, I've never been called. People shouldn't shirk the responsibility.

From what I understand your odds of actually being put on a jury are basically zero. The attorneys for trials don't usually want lawyers on the jury from what I've read due to the fact that you will be able exert undue influence because of your much greater knowledge.

Oh, and I love how Mr. Freedom Jaskalas wants to jail anyone who doesn't vote. The government forcing you to pay into a health care system that you already use or pay a fine? TYRANNY. The government forcing you to go participate in a political system or face imprisonment? NO PROBLEM.

 

[blankslate]

I really don't care - I rarely watch TV. I prefer to read, and O'Rourke's writing is funny as heck, and generally insightful.

Maybe so but you'd think a person with the mental acuity to write well would be able to think better on their feet as it were. Granted Bill Maher isn't an impartial mediator. I read too. Although not as much as before I got into computers. Unless reading blogs and news sites like associated press, reuters and bbc news online counts.

 

[Thump553]

piasbird: you answered your own question.

And jail time here for contempt was appropriate. This person had already been seated on the jury and deliberately violated the court's orders in a scheme to be kicked off the jury. Nearly all juries in my state have one one alternate, so if something happened to someone else the trial would be canceled. That's a waste of a lot of peoples' time and state money so that this person could act like a self centered jerk.

Mursilis: You'll get called eventually. I went forever without getting called then I was summoned three times in the last decade. If my experience is any guide the chances of you actually being seated on a jury are next to nill-I only went to voir dire once and it turned out I knew the plaintiff. My tip-bring one (or two) thick books to read, time in the jury assembly area moves very slowly.

 

[Icepick]

It is a tricky situation, though, if you were a part of the trial, would you want someone with that mentality judging your fate?

You don't want jackasses on the jury, yet you also don't want jackasses a free pass out of life.

The lawyers want "jackasses" on the jury. People who do not think for themselves and are easily influenced. They want people whose attitude is "well, they said he was guilty so he's guilty" without questioning.

 

[woolfe9999]

contempt of court = you didn't break any law but the judge personally didn't like what you did.


I'm sure they called it something else in nazi germany.

This is utterly foolish and just flat out wrong. Contempt of court means violating an express order from a judge, e.g. in this case, an order of no contact between jurors and parties to the case. The offense is defined by statute, as is the penalty for it. So yes, by violating the court's order, you are breaking the law. No, not your Godwin's law; the real ones.

 

[ShawnD1]

Oh, and I love how Mr. Freedom Jaskalas wants to jail anyone who doesn't vote. The government forcing you to pay into a health care system that you already use or pay a fine? TYRANNY. The government forcing you to go participate in a political system or face imprisonment? NO PROBLEM.

Forced voting would ruin the system. Imagine how many people would vote for the guy with the goofiest name.

The lawyers want "jackasses" on the jury. People who do not think for themselves and are easily influenced. They want people whose attitude is "well, they said he was guilty so he's guilty" without questioning.

I'm amazed the US allows that. I don't think many countries allow the inmates lawyers to run the asylum.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oh, and I love how Mr. Freedom Jaskalas wants to jail anyone who doesn't vote. The government forcing you to pay into a health care system that you already use or pay a fine? TYRANNY. The government forcing you to go participate in a political system or face imprisonment? NO PROBLEM.

Why was this guy jailed again?

Donnellan reprimanded Jock for his actions, reported the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, concluding a two-hour contempt-of-court hearing by saying, “I cannot think of a more insidious threat to the erosion of democracy than citizens who do not care.”

If jailing this man for what he did is legal, under the grounds cited above, then forcing people to vote is most certainly the same thing.

I'm making an argument here about how unjust our 'justice' system is.