Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justic

[Y2HH]

I don't like the idea of employers directly subsidizing a civic duty. But if the government would tax the wealthy like it should they could ultimately be defraying the cost of such a program.

 

Err, no.

 

We are already spending far too much, and you want to spend even more now? And taxing the wealthy will only get you so far...hell, it wouldn't even balance the budget we have now, WITHOUT adding more too it.

 

Rather than just saying we need to tax the wealthy more, what we truly need is a completely reformed and simplified tax code. Anything less won't come close to fixing our spending/revenue issues. At our current rate of spending, you could tax the rich at 80% and it wouldn't matter...we'd still be in deficit. And, let's not forget that if you did try to tax the rich at that rate, they'd just take their "ball of money" and leave. Because they can afford to do so.

 

Our government needs to start implementing meaningful changes that can make a real difference, not political ones...such as the much talked about "Buffet rule", which results in almost nothing. But they won't, because why should they? People will keep electing them and they'll keep getting paid huge salaries to "work hard" at accomplishing nothing.

 

Oh, and I'm sick of people in the government saying they're, "working hard". They don't know what hard work is, because they don't do it. Hard work results in...you know, results. They give us no results year after year...but they're working hard.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

Err, no.

 

We are already spending far too much, and you want to spend even more now? And taxing the wealthy will only get you so far...hell, it wouldn't even balance the budget we have now, WITHOUT adding more too it.

 

Rather than just saying we need to tax the wealthy more, what we truly need is a completely reformed and simplified tax code. Anything less won't come close to fixing our spending/revenue issues. At our current rate of spending, you could tax the rich at 80% and it wouldn't matter...we'd still be in deficit. And, let's not forget that if you did try to tax the rich at that rate, they'd just take their "ball of money" and leave. Because they can afford to do so.

What would you suggest then? You're crying about people not wanting to be on a jury, and it's partially because they get penalized economically for doing so....who is in the best position to pay?

[Y2HH]

What would you suggest then? You're crying about people not wanting to be on a jury, and it's partially because they get penalized economically for doing so....who is in the best position to pay?

 

Well, as I see it, helping your fellow man/woman/child when it comes to jury duty isn't supposed about financial or personal gain. Our court system, which people repeatedly call the best in the world, is set up in a way in which your civic duty results in a call to help your fellow man/woman/child get a fair trail in front of a jury of their peers, who will convict the guilty and set the innocent free, or in the case of civil suits, award proper damages, if any. Being how important of an event that trial can be in a persons life, I think we should all view it in the way in which, while quite inconvenient, you're actually doing someone a great service, even if it's quite anonymous.

 

This again comes full circle...people love to talk about how giving they are, but they only apply that "giving-ness" to things such as charitable donations, or walking for breast cancer awareness, because that's an accepted societal norm, and wearing a pink Susan G Koman shirt makes you awesome in the eyes of society, while being a juror sucks. Society doesn't care if you served on a jury and potentially prevented an innocent person from a life of hell in prison, or perhaps prevented a guilty rapist from walking the streets and ruining another set of lives...the collective hive mind decided to arbitrarily care that you walked around in a pink shirt, instead.

 

Last I checked, people don't get paid to walk around for breast cancer awareness, either...they actually pay to do it...and it's also an all day, or multi-day event. But...that's not like jury duty...jury duty just sucks. :/ And yes, I realize one is completely voluntary...but that only works because society decided it's awesome...and unless they found a way to make jury duty as awesome as walking around for some disease, the only way to get people to serve/help/do their duty is at gun point...practically...or apparently, to bribe them.

 

TL;DR: I try to view jury duty as *giving* someone a shot at a fair trail, be it civil or criminal...instead of an inconvenience. Something you shouldn't need to be bribed into doing for them. Not to mention it's a maximum of once a year, IF that...it's not like they're asking you to do this once a month.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

Well, as I see it, helping your fellow man/woman/child when it comes to jury duty isn't supposed about financial or personal gain. Our court system, which people repeatedly call the best in the world, is set up in a way in which your civic duty results in a call to help your fellow man/woman/child get a fair trail in front of a jury of their peers, who will convict the guilty and set the innocent free, or in the case of civil suits, award proper damages, if any. Being how important of an event that trial can be in a persons life, I think we should all view it in the way in which, while quite inconvenient, you're actually doing someone a great service, even if it's quite anonymous.

 

This again comes full circle...people love to talk about how giving they are, but they only apply that "giving-ness" to things such as charitable donations, or walking for breast cancer awareness, because that's an accepted societal norm, and wearing a pink Susan G Koman shirt makes you awesome in the eyes of society, while being a juror sucks. Society doesn't care if you served on a jury and potentially prevented an innocent person from a life of hell in prison, or perhaps prevented a guilty rapist from walking the streets and ruining another set of lives...the collective hive mind decided to arbitrarily care that you walked around in a pink shirt, instead.

 

Last I checked, people don't get paid to walk around for breast cancer awareness, either...they actually pay to do it...and it's also an all day, or multi-day event. But...that's not like jury duty...jury duty just sucks. :/ And yes, I realize one is completely voluntary...but that only works because society decided it's awesome...and unless they found a way to make jury duty as awesome as walking around for some disease, the only way to get people to serve/help/do their duty is at gun point...practically...or apparently, to bribe them.

 

TL;DR: I try to view jury duty as *giving* someone a shot at a fair trail, be it civil or criminal...instead of an inconvenience. Something you shouldn't need to be bribed into doing for them. Not to mention it's a maximum of once a year, IF that...it's not like they're asking you to do this once a month.

Yeah, that's great...now go join a jury for two weeks and get paid $11 a day...

[Y2HH]

Yeah, that's great...now go join a jury for two weeks and get paid $11 a day...

 

While I understand that happens, and THOSE specific cases are an inconvenience...they're also pretty rare, to the point that I don't know a single person, at any point in my life, that's served longer than 1 day at a time.

 

As far as I'm concerned, THOSE people have every right to b****...and you aren't one of them.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

While I understand that happens, and THOSE specific cases are an inconvenience...they're also pretty rare, to the point that I don't know a single person, at any point in my life, that's served longer than 1 day at a time.

 

As far as I'm concerned, THOSE people have every right to b****...and you aren't one of them.

I'm not b****ing...I actually WANTED to be on jury duty but I never can because I have a law degree...I always get kicked off.

[Iwritecode]

Well, as I see it, helping your fellow man/woman/child when it comes to jury duty isn't supposed about financial or personal gain. Our court system, which people repeatedly call the best in the world, is set up in a way in which your civic duty results in a call to help your fellow man/woman/child get a fair trail in front of a jury of their peers, who will convict the guilty and set the innocent free, or in the case of civil suits, award proper damages, if any. Being how important of an event that trial can be in a persons life, I think we should all view it in the way in which, while quite inconvenient, you're actually doing someone a great service, even if it's quite anonymous.

 

This again comes full circle...people love to talk about how giving they are, but they only apply that "giving-ness" to things such as charitable donations, or walking for breast cancer awareness, because that's an accepted societal norm, and wearing a pink Susan G Koman shirt makes you awesome in the eyes of society, while being a juror sucks. Society doesn't care if you served on a jury and potentially prevented an innocent person from a life of hell in prison, or perhaps prevented a guilty rapist from walking the streets and ruining another set of lives...the collective hive mind decided to arbitrarily care that you walked around in a pink shirt, instead.

 

Last I checked, people don't get paid to walk around for breast cancer awareness, either...they actually pay to do it...and it's also an all day, or multi-day event. But...that's not like jury duty...jury duty just sucks. :/ And yes, I realize one is completely voluntary...but that only works because society decided it's awesome...and unless they found a way to make jury duty as awesome as walking around for some disease, the only way to get people to serve/help/do their duty is at gun point...practically...or apparently, to bribe them.

 

TL;DR: I try to view jury duty as *giving* someone a shot at a fair trail, be it civil or criminal...instead of an inconvenience. Something you shouldn't need to be bribed into doing for them. Not to mention it's a maximum of once a year, IF that...it's not like they're asking you to do this once a month.

 

 

First of all, it's not about financial or personal gain at all. It's about keeping the status quo. I simply can't go a few days, or a week, or a few weeks with no pay, because I'd be right back in the courts again but it would be bankruptcy court. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in that same situation.

 

Secondly, comparing jury duty to breast cancer walks is a horrible comparison for the exact reason you stated. It's voluntary. FWIW, I don't do those either because I can't afford to take off from work.

 

 

[Y2HH]

First of all, it's not about financial or personal gain at all. It's about keeping the status quo. I simply can't go a few days, or a week, or a few weeks with no pay, because I'd be right back in the courts again but it would be bankruptcy court. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in that same situation.

 

I realize there are people that aren't in the position to be able to serve properly, and that's fine for THOSE specific people. The problem is, MOST people, even those that CAN afford to go to jury duty and serve properly do not want too, and find ways to get out of doing so. That includes those that get paid full wages to go to jury duty.

 

And again someone mentions going for multiple days (this time you mentioned it)...when more often than not, jury duty is -- at maximum once a year -- and usually for a single day.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

It says a lot when people will laugh at the joke, do you really want your fate decided by people too stupid to get out of jury duty?