Blagnet.net

Juror conscription is not a civic duty

I wonder if anyone but myself, who is pretty thoroughly obsessed with quotations from famous figures throughout history, enjoys our random quote generator that Kel put at the top of our page. (He didn’t write the code, he just put it up there; the plugin is by Dustin Barnes.) I know I have too many quotes in it, but I do like the breadth and variety of their subjects and authors. However, sometimes I feel like putting a permanent quote right between the menu bar and the top of the most recent post: “And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?” from V for Vendetta. But it wouldn’t apply just to this country, or any given welfare-warfare state; it would apply to any number of institutions composing the welfare-warfare state. The government-schooling system, the incarceration of innocent people for victimless crimes, our increasingly socialist health-care system, for instance.

Or, our absurd practice of drafting people for jury duty.

Now, come on. Obviously this idea is absurd on every level. What else are people forced to interrupt their daily lives for, skip work for, and devote that much time and energy to, which is this important? And about which people dismiss you as kooky and outlandish at the suggestion that people be paid to specialize in it—you know, like, as a career? Is it because you see how terrible lawyers and judges are and you don’t want jurors to become like that, too? (Well, they are, because they are manipulated by opportunist judges and lawyers anyway.)

What else should people be conscripted away from their jobs and normal lives for? Why not trying cases as lawyers? Why not sitting on the bench as judges? How about security guards at the courthouse? Clerks, receptionists, stenographers? Road construction workers? Social workers? Hazmat technicians? Forensic lab scientists? Homicide detectives? The freaking courthouse janitors are hired and paid a salary for their jobs; why can’t jurors be?

It’s not so discomforting or alarming to admit that there’s nothing special about jurors that restricts them from being paid and taking that on as their career, just like attorneys and judges. To admit this is very foreign and anti-establishment, but that’s where a lot of great ideas come from. Try it out once in a while. You don’t have to fully admit it today, just think about why that “duty” is the only one in the entire world that has to be done by ignorant non-professionals—captives—involuntarily. And think about what V said: there is something terribly wrong with that, isn’t there? I mean, isn’t it obvious?

Well, as Voltaire said, common sense is not so common. Among academics, some of the brightest and, at the same time, most ignorant people alive, such sense is very uncommon. In the network of blags associated with the Nature website, Anna Kushnir writes about her experience with her “civic duty”. Her Statolatry prevents her from realizing her own situation demonstrated the complete absurdity of juror-conscription. No such common sense was evident in most of the comments beneath her post, either:

“What’s so bad about jury duty? Like voting, it is the little bit we can contribute as individuals to keep aspects of our society that we like running smoothly. I’ve only been called twice. Neither was a murder trial. As long as the system is flexible enough to arrange alternative dates…”

Yes, I agree, people doing what they want with their time and being productive at their jobs really does prevent society from running smoothly, doesn’t it? I’m glad your idea of a smoothly running society is so much better than mine because, man, if I were allowed to spend my time and my freedom the way I wanted—whoa, that would be too bad for you and your grand vision of harmony enforced at gunpoint! And, yes, as long as the system is flexible enough for your tastes but not flexible enough to let people participate in the court system of their choice and let society function under free and voluntary exchange, then your system is the best possible one.

“I absolutely agree with you. There is utterly nothing wrong with jury duty! It’s definitely a good thing, especially when the juror is lacking obvious prejudices and preconceived notions (just really hoping that applies to me. Not sure though).”

Yes, there is utterly nothing wrong with forcing the subjects of your benevolent State to sacrifice days, weeks, and even months at their jobs, severely interrupting their normal lives for however long or short a period of time, to perform tasks they are utterly unqualified for and are easily manipulated in, which they have little to no interest in doing carefully, which they are not compensated enough for, which they will try their hardest to get out of (and the smart ones do), and which they are obviously terrible at, judging by the state of our society’s legal system. It’s definitely a good thing, especially when the juror is lacking obvious independent-thinking capacity and is easily manipulable by emotion and rhetoric.

There is utterly nothing wrong with taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn’t, either; and if the former don’t submit obediently, you can either kidnap them and enslave them in a cage for five or ten years, or, if they don’t comply with that solution too readily, you can shoot them dead! There is utterly nothing wrong with beating, terrorizing, kidnapping, and enslaving someone for daring to ingest substances you don’t approve of, and putting him in a cage next to serial murderers and rapists for five or ten years, either! There is utterly nothing wrong with a method of electing rulers and enforcing laws that consists basically of Might Makes Right, either! There is utterly nothing wrong with a system that rewards aggressive and manipulative behavior—outright lying and assaulting—by its cops, lawyers, and judges, and punishes such behavior too rarely and weakly to serve as any kind of deterrent! These are all definitely good things, as long as these atrocities and the people performing them were approved of by a majority of people in clean, honest democratic elections!

We are all fortunate that you think there is utterly nothing wrong with our legal system and it’s definitely a good thing; and it’s nice that a majority of this country’s sheeple agree with you, or else you wouldn’t be able to force dissenters to submit and obey, would you?

“I think it would be a very interesting experience, but only if it’s a short trial. The thought of getting caught up in a 4-month long event scares me silly.”

It scares me silly, too! Are you scared silly enough that you will give some credence to the “wacky, outlandish” notion that courts should be private and voluntary like every other functional aspect of our society, and jurors should be paid professionals and not ignorant captives?

Yeah, I hope you do get called for just a short trial, so you can leave others to serve on long trials and suffer the most severely from your beloved juror-drafting scheme.

One David Whitlock totally blew me away with this comment: “I have been called for jury duty a few times but have never served on a jury. I think the conventional wisdom is that lawyers don’t want scientists on juries; they want people they can manipulate with rhetoric and emotion, not facts and logic.”

Wow. A scientist expressing doubt and skepticism about the almighty State and its beneficent agents. According to his profile, he works in industry, so it’s a little less surprising coming from a non-academic. Still surprising, though.

Here’s a survey for libertarians and Statists alike: Would you rather have your fate decided by 12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty, or have your fate decided by 12 people like these Statolatrist boobs who love and defend the practice of juror-drafting to no end and think it is a glorious civic duty to be performed with pride and obedience?

Posted in Police/law enforcement, Statolatry, Unrealistic