Abortion

Sounds like one messed-up agenda, full of contradictions.
A hippie!! ; )

Uhm, maybe not. LOL.

 

I believe it's unfair for a group of 12 people to decide an individual's fate, espeically how in Canada and the U.S. the jurors can't know much about the law, they're basically hand picked idiots.

For instance, I can't be a juror because I'm taking Political Science in University, and I'm pretty sure if you take Grade 12 Law you're also off the list, most professions don't allow for jury selection, I think doctors aren't allowed to be juror, most teachers aren't allowed to be juror, cops obviously can't be juror, etc.

Along with that, you need all 12 jurors to agree on the verdict, that's right, meaning even 1 individual can hang the jury, which doesn't happen too often because the jurors don't take the trial seriously enough and just agree.

It just doesn't work. In our day and age, best way to convict an individual on a crime is by DNA evidence and circumstantial evidence ( both, not just one ).

 

A contradiction would be if I said I loved oranges but I hate everything orange, THAT would be a contradiction.

 

Wow, I didn't know that...that's disturbing >_<
I think there should be a certain level of intelligence and education about laws that should be required to be a juror...you're deciding someone's fate!

 

He mistaken, of course. Someone who practices law, medicine or is actively attending law-related classes is not precluded from jury duty in the US (Can't speak for Canada). They would, however, possibly be dismissed by either cousel for any reason. Officers of the court are excused from jury duty but that does not include all attorneys. The only requirement in the US is one be a citizen, have no felony arrest record and be 21 years of age. Period. So try again, nutter.

This is just another example of a conspiracy nut blowing his delusions all over the internet. No credibility whatsoever. None.

And why would you think that I might need to look up the word "agnostic"? I was an agnostic before you were born, son. It's more social and infinitely more fun to be a heathen.

 

You're an idiot, I'm sorry, but you are, if you don't want to believe, that's perfectly fine, but you're just spitting at fact.

Where may I ask is your credibility?

 

For several reasons, I question your age. Of course then there's people like Tom Metzger.

 

OK, I may be an idiot, but you made the assertions, please post your references. In the US, jury member requirements are based on state constitutions and bylaws. Not one state excuses doctors, lawyers, or law students.

So state your references for these spurious statements or retract them. Or we'll know you're a big fat liar.

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You can't be serious...

 

For example, in Washington State, there are 4 requirements for jury duty:

You must be 18 years of age or older (this does vary from state to state)
You must be a citizen of the United States
You must be able to communicate in the English language
If you have been convicted of a felony, your civil rights must be restored

Nothing at all about being excused because you're a doctor, a lawyer or an indian chief.

 

Maybe I was a bit too harsh, perhaps you have a Major in Criminology??

It is stated by U.S. law that the jury is to be made up of 12 citizens of unbiased opinion, UNBIASED.

Do you know anything about Jury selection? Both the Defence and Prosecution must agree.

Now I do admit I know more about the Canadian system of justice than the U.S., here's what it states in Canada:

At Least 19 years of age
A Canadian citizen
A resident of the province which the crime was commited

Here's what disqualifies jurors:

Police Officer, Lawyer, Employee of certain government agencies
Convicted of certain criminal offences within last 5 years

Now Jury Selection usually omits professions such as doctors

For instance, if there's a trial dealing with a maniac, the prosecution would never allow a doctor on the jury.

This is why the jury system fails I again state, because jurors are handpicked by the prosecution and defence, and trust me on this, I've attended several trials ( you can go to a trial you know ).

You just can't have a highly educated individual as a juror, it's not in the law it's common knowledge, it's much like stating in the law books that nobody can sky dive older than 80.

 

Not really.
Your so-called agenda is just a messy convoluted view of reality that merely reflects your own confusion.

There is nothing new to it.

 

You do realise it could work, it's not like communism where everybody works to their own extent without being rewarded for it, it's like fascism where laws are passed and enforced by view of one individual or set of individuals.

 

You said:

There's a world of difference between what you said and reality. ANYONE except an officer of the court (and this excludes police) can be selected for jury duty. Whether or not the defending and prosecuting councsel will allow those people to actually perform on a jury is a different matter entirely.

As expected, we've put up with 8 pages of your rhetoric and you still failed to deliver the goods. Takes a big man to make up stories while hiding behind a keyboard, son.

For the record, I am a poor carpenter. I repair homes for people living below the poverty line and senior citizens who might otherwise lose their homes. It's one of the few programs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development that actually puts tax dollars to a charitible use. I make very little money and I love my job more than my hobbies or anything else I do. Ninety percent of my clientele are African Americans. Would you care to retract your backhanded accusation that I am a racist now or should I continue to pummel you until the truth sets you free?

 

Can, but hardly ever are, a good lawyer would never risk selecting a highly educated individual because of the bias factor, in other words, idiots who don't know much are the only ones who can be unbiased, at least that's the closest to an unbiased person you can come to.

As I stated, lawyers cannot be jurors, they are excluded ( at least by Canadian law ) and you stated that they could be selected, so you were wrong in that.

The fact is, the jury system fails because unbiased opinion is near impossible and in most cases that leads to extremely unjust ways of performing justice, that's what I was getting at, smartass.

I'm sorry but since when have I been expected to deliver anything to you people? This is an opinion vs opinion thread, I've given my facts long ago.

Did I call you a racist? Probably not something I cared to remember, refresh my memory.

Pummel away big boy.

 

P.S.

By Canadian law I can easily be excused from Jury duty because I am a student, and if I did attend jury selection like some of my friends have, I would have as much chance of being selected as a monkey.

 

Stop with Canadian law, I know nothing of Canadian law and said so. You said Us law, of which you know NOTHING.

And you compared me to Tom Metzger. That was completely uncalled for. Did I compare you to Hitler or Mussolini?

 

I wouldn't expect too much from Maximus as far as being mature when arguing. I have found out that anyone who doesn't agree with him is automatically considered an idiot in his mind.

 

Wow, you really showed your intelligence on that one, when in the hell did I compare you to Metzger? Hmmmm?? I implied that there's people who are far older than me who can be considered idiots.

My " agenda " of which you asked is obviously based on Canada since I live here ( although to be fair I would LOVE to move to either Germany or Switzerland ).


P.S. Mussolini was a great man, it would be an unjust compliment to compare me to him.

 

Actually no, not everyone.