Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yeah you did. Over and over and over again, despite everyone laughing at you.

Are you having hallucinations? He was referring to the first post I had made in the thread, which was a two liner. 'Over and over again'? Perjuring yourself to discredit me doesn't make your arguments look very credible.

You can of course quote any section of text I've written in order to demonstrate that I've suggested that 'people can only be motivated by threats of punishment'.

You'll find it impossible of course, so you'll probably pretend you didn't read this far.

[speling bee]

I tend to refer to women as men unless I need to be gender specific. Man kind, etc.

A victimless crime is one...er... where there is no victim Take possession of drugs for example.

In fact attending court and helping to enforce it's illegal status makes people personally responsible for scores of dead teenagers & young men & women each year. When you make proper drugs illegal, people who are determined to get high - as they have every right to do - are compelled to take these crappy legal highs, etc, which are often far worse for them than the 'proper' drugs.

Making drugs illegal causes organised crime, localised gang violence, etc, etc.

That's all besides the point, of course, but it's pretty typical result of inventing a criminal offence that has no legitimate reason to exist.

I don't think possession should be a crime either. Turn up to the jury and vote Not Guilty. Easy peasy.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The general public are the victims in that case.

How so?

Even if we accept that drug possession is a victimless crime (and I don't), does that mean you'd be willing to serve on a jury for every other crime apart from that one, or is there a list of crimes that you wouldn't serve on a jury for?

The only alleged crimes that I would theoretically be happy to judge would be those that were in respect to the initiation of violence, threats of violence, or fraud.

It's a hard question to answer because of course I'd like to see justice. The kind of world I'd like to live in is only possible with strong property rights, which includes the right for me, as the owner of myself, to pursue my life free from other men. And vice versa.

Given that I'm compelled to judge only whether a crime has been committed - according to the law - and not whether the act being judge should be considered a crime in the first place, I'm not sure that I have anything to offer that anyone else doesn't. With that being the case I'm perfectly happy to wash my hands of it and let less morally principled men conduct their ugly business according to the ugly laws and customs, and under the forceful compulsion, which they've chosen for themselves.

*If* it turned out to be the case that I could have a positive affect on the outcome of a trial - insofar as real justice is concerned; not justice according to our laws - then there would certainly be a reason to consider overlooking the fact that I would be there because I was threatened. I'd have to consider the merits of causing a positive outcome vs the tacit endorsement of a system I find morally reprehensible.

Until such a revelation, I think I'd see more good done in attending court and taking the opportunity to explain fully, in front of as many people as possible, exactly why I don't feel that it's in anyone's interest to have me on the jury; And hope that I don't suffer any consequences.

[speling bee]

How so?




The only alleged crimes that I would theoretically be happy to judge would be those that were in respect to the initiation of violence, threats of violence, or fraud.

It's a hard question to answer because of course I'd like to see justice. The kind of world I'd like to live in is only possible with strong property rights, which includes the right for me, as the owner of myself, to pursue my life free from other men. And vice versa.

Given that I'm compelled to judge only whether a crime has been committed - according to the law - and not whether the act being judge should be considered a crime in the first place, I'm not sure that I have anything to offer that anyone else doesn't. .

A jury may return a perverse verdict, so if on a jury encourage that if it works for you. I think this is the weaker part of your argument. Far more interesting IMO is the libertarian view that being forced to participate in a jury under threat of legal sanction is an intolerable attack on personal liberty.

Perhaps a solution (if it really is intolerable) would be that an individual may at any time (before being called for jury service!) opt out of jury service, and in return lose their right to trial by jury and instead be tried by a judge only.

[d000hg]

Are you having hallucinations? He was referring to the first post I had made in the thread, which was a two liner. 'Over and over again'? Perjuring yourself to discredit me doesn't make your arguments look very credible.

You can of course quote any section of text I've written in order to demonstrate that I've suggested that 'people can only be motivated by threats of punishment'.

You'll find it impossible of course, so you'll probably pretend you didn't read this far.

You have done many times over the months. Everybody knows it, I'm not sure why to see any benefit pretending otherwise. You're obsessed with the subject of law being underwritten by [threat of] violence.

[speling bee]

You have done many times over the months. Everybody knows it, I'm not sure why to see any benefit pretending otherwise. You're obsessed with the subject of law being underwritten by [threat of] violence.

It's basic Randian libertarianism. I wouldn't mind it too much if they didn't insist on the ability to use violence to protect their property which was itself taken by violence or threat of violence. Lose the property rights and it's reasonably coherent in a sixth form debating society kind of way, if somewhat impractical.

[speling bee]

The power of a jury to return a perverse verdict is a powerful antidote to state power.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the "ARA General Belgrano". Three years later in 1985, civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament (Tam Dalyell) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.[25] The prosecution in the case demanded that the jury convict Ponting as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government. He had argued that he had acted out of "his duty to the interests of the state"; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government.

[Uncle Albert]

I can't wait for jury service. I am a permie.

I would find the accused innocent. I hate courts and the police.

Even if the accused was an ex wife?

[speling bee]

Even if the accused was an ex wife?

They's have to address the jury summons to Underneath the Patio.

[speling bee]

Here's a question for our resident libertarians.

If you witness a murder or another very serious crime, should the courts be able to compel your attendance under threat of violence (arrest) to give testimony.