Libertarians and jury duty

[Undesired Walrus]

Out of interest, what is the Libertarian opinion on jury duty?

 

[Phrost]

I'm one of those pesky "small-L", libertarians that's a bit more moderate and reasonably accepting of the need for a bit more government than most Libertarian idealists would like. So I'm not sure if I qualify for this.

But regardless, the last time I went to jury duty it was for a case where an old man wandered into an off-limits area at a Jiffy Lube and fell into one of the pits. He was suing the franchise over it, and during the selection process, when asked, I stood up and stated bluntly that I did not feel the property owners were at fault for the negligence of an individual who failed to heed warning signs and was wandering around on someone else's property where he shouldn't have been.

The lawyers for the plaintiff responded that there were laws on the books which stated that the owners had an obligation to keep people away from those dangers, and asked if I could make a decision based on what they argued the law was. I responded that I refused to accept a law like that as just or valid.

The defendant's attorney asked me a somewhat leading question or two, hoping to get me to state something that would temper what I'd said, obviously because he felt I'd be great for his case if I sat on the jury. But I, of course, wasn't selected for the trial. I probably went to the top of the plaintiff's team's exclusion list.

The cool thing was that I wasn't the only person who expressed the same sentiments. The cynic in me though wonders if some others didn't just follow my lead in the hopes of going home early.

Hope that helps.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Thanks. But I was more curious about how Libertarians felt about jury duty itself, whether the state should be allowed to call people up and declare that someone is in contempt of court if they refuse to participate.

 

[Phrost]

I think it's a perfectly valid civic duty.

 

[FlamingMoe]

In my state they comb voter registration for a jury pool. If you don't want to fulfill your role in ensuring your fellow citizens get a fair trial, then you just don't have to vote either.

I can't say I completely agree with the system, simply because having a say in your elected representatives is pretty much a fundamental element of a libertarian government, but I can't think of a more reasonable way to do it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've never heard libertarians argue against it. I imagine some anarcho-capitalists might not be fond of it, but they're a silly people.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

A perfectly valid civic duty, but isn't being charged with contempt of court if one refuses to participate going against the whole Libertarian ethos?

 

[Tormac]

I don't know if I'm a Libertarian, or libertarian, but I’m likely one or the other (tend to vote for candidates of the Libertarian Party, agree with most of the planks of the Libertarian party to some extent).

I’ve served on a jury before, it seems only logical to me that if I want to be judged by a jury of my peers if I get into trouble, I have to serve as a juror as well.

I’ve never heard of a Libertarian, libertarian, or even an Objectists or Anarcho-capitalists that wants to abolish the right to a jury by someone’s peers. It seems like the fairest possible system out there.

That’s not to say that there is not someone out there who says that there are a libertarian and are against it. But it is certainly not a tenant of the American Libertarian party. Of course there is always at least one there, in everyone’s party.

 

[Tormac]

A perfectly valid civic duty, but isn't being charged with contempt of court if one refuses to participate going against the whole Libertarian ethos?

On a practical level it is so easy to get out of jury duty, I don’t know what one would have to do to be charged with contempt of court over jury duty, but I’m pretty sure it would be such a high level of argumentative stupidity, that everyone would say that person had it coming to them.

I’ve never heard of a “Libertarian ethos” that says people don’t have any responsibilities to their government.

 

[Iamme]

I think it's a perfectly valid civic duty.

Why can't it be the civic duty of lawyers themselves (since they already know so much about the law and legal procedings and don't have to waste civilians, and their time, for coaching them on the such), to serve, for free, since they make so much money in that business!

If you were to equate forming a case to that of framing a house (both are building up something to some end), do you form your case and frame your house with cheaply paid hired help who know nothing?, or employ professionals that do?

Phrost, I bet you also one of them that think that driving a car is a priveledge and not a right -right? I'll drive if I d_ _ _ _ well please, thank you very much! So that being said, you might get a clue as to what I feel about the gov't ordering me to do this or that. I believe in a simple rule of thumb where I will do as I please, as long as I do not hurt anybody. I believe simply in engaging my fellow man in free trade practices, and not much else. And if somebody else wants something done and wants to volunteer me, I will say "why don't you volunteer for yourself and leave me alone."

 

[dudalb]

Phrost, I bet you also one of them that think that driving a car is a priveledge and not a right -right? I'll drive if I d_ _ _ _ well please, thank you very much! So that being said, you might get a clue as to what I feel about the gov't ordering me to do this or that. I believe in a simple rule of thumb where I will do as I please, as long as I do not hurt anybody. I believe simply in engaging my fellow man in free trade practices, and not much else. And if somebody else wants something done and wants to volunteer me, I will say "why don't you volunteer for yourself and leave me alone."

And here is why the Libetarian movement never gets anyplace, politically.
So you have a right to get into a car drunk and drive, guy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why can't it be the civic duty of lawyers themselves (since they already know so much about the law and legal procedings and don't have to waste civilians, and their time, for coaching them on the such), to serve, for free, since they make so much money in that business!

Because then it wouldn't be a jury of our peers (unless we are lawyers ourselves). The framers thought this was important. Not everyone agrees (other countries use judges to decide guilt or innocence), but if you want a jury of your peers (and I'd say most Americans do, at least as an option), you can't do it with only lawyers. We need obligatory jury duty if we want to have jury trials as they exist right now. Give up the former and you can't keep the latter.

 

[KingMerv00]

Why can't it be the civic duty of lawyers themselves (since they already know so much about the law and legal procedings and don't have to waste civilians, and their time, for coaching them on the such), to serve, for free, since they make so much money in that business!

First off, not all lawyers make lots of money.

Second, the jury is not asked to interpret the law (what evidence is admissible etc), they are asked to interpret the facts. That means being a lawyer isn't all that helpful.

And if somebody else wants something done and wants to volunteer me, I will say "why don't you volunteer for yourself and leave me alone."

Do you pay your taxes?

 

[Puppycow]

I'm one of those pesky "small-L", libertarians that's a bit more moderate and reasonably accepting of the need for a bit more government than most Libertarian idealists would like. So I'm not sure if I qualify for this.

But regardless, the last time I went to jury duty it was for a case where an old man wandered into an off-limits area at a Jiffy Lube and fell into one of the pits. He was suing the franchise over it, and during the selection process, when asked, I stood up and stated bluntly that I did not feel the property owners were at fault for the negligence of an individual who failed to heed warning signs and was wandering around on someone else's property where he shouldn't have been.

The lawyers for the plaintiff responded that there were laws on the books which stated that the owners had an obligation to keep people away from those dangers, and asked if I could make a decision based on what they argued the law was. I responded that I refused to accept a law like that as just or valid.

The defendant's attorney asked me a somewhat leading question or two, hoping to get me to state something that would temper what I'd said, obviously because he felt I'd be great for his case if I sat on the jury. But I, of course, wasn't selected for the trial. I probably went to the top of the plaintiff's team's exclusion list.

The cool thing was that I wasn't the only person who expressed the same sentiments. The cynic in me though wonders if some others didn't just follow my lead in the hopes of going home early.

Hope that helps.

I'm curious if you were happy to be dismissed or would have liked to be allowed on the jury? Surely you knew that the result would be that you would not be a member of the jury?

It seems like jury members self-select. I've sat on a jury.
I tend to think that if you think a certain law is unjust, that the higher duty is not to tell the prosecutor that but to say something noncommittal and then vote as a jury member based on what you think about the justice of the case, not just the letter of the law. I'm not saying that the letter of the law is irrelevant, just that justice should be the highest ideal.

 

[KingMerv00]

I responded that I refused to accept a law like that as just or valid.

I tend to think that if you think a certain law is unjust, that the higher duty is not to tell the prosecutor that but to say something noncommittal and then vote as a jury member based on what you think about the justice of the case, not just the letter of the law. I'm not saying that the letter of the law is irrelevant, just that justice should be the highest ideal.

You guys are scaring me. Stop it.

 

[Iamme]

And here is why the Libetarian movement never gets anyplace, politically.
So you have a right to get into a car drunk and drive, guy?

Can't you read?!!! My theme is that you can do things as long as you don't hurt others - and here you go, with your last sentence.

I think some of you here are simply so anxious to find fault with every single thing I say, no matter what I say, that you don't even bother to read!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Out of interest, what is the Libertarian opinion on jury duty?

The Federal Reserve prints counterfeit money.



That's their position on everything.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

You seriously think that someone with no training or experience and no knowledge of the laws of traffic should be allowed to drive? That's pretty out there.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm one of those pesky "small-L", libertarians that's a bit more moderate and reasonably accepting of the need for a bit more government than most Libertarian idealists would like. So I'm not sure if I qualify for this.

But regardless, the last time I went to jury duty it was for a case where an old man wandered into an off-limits area at a Jiffy Lube and fell into one of the pits. He was suing the franchise over it, and during the selection process, when asked, I stood up and stated bluntly that I did not feel the property owners were at fault for the negligence of an individual who failed to heed warning signs and was wandering around on someone else's property where he shouldn't have been.

The lawyers for the plaintiff responded that there were laws on the books which stated that the owners had an obligation to keep people away from those dangers, and asked if I could make a decision based on what they argued the law was. I responded that I refused to accept a law like that as just or valid.

The defendant's attorney asked me a somewhat leading question or two, hoping to get me to state something that would temper what I'd said, obviously because he felt I'd be great for his case if I sat on the jury. But I, of course, wasn't selected for the trial. I probably went to the top of the plaintiff's team's exclusion list.

The cool thing was that I wasn't the only person who expressed the same sentiments. The cynic in me though wonders if some others didn't just follow my lead in the hopes of going home early.

Hope that helps.

You played your cards too early. The only way to prevent crap like this is to lie during voir dire. Tell them you don't really have enough information to make a decision. Then, when you get on the jury, you don't even have to listen to the evidence. You know all along that you are voting against the guy who fell into the pit.

 

[GreyICE]

Wait, did someone just argue that someone should prejudge a case without listening to the evidence at all then sabatoge the entire court system in the name of their quixotic crusade? Without at any point stopping to consider any merits of the case?

Yes, lets prejudge without evidence. And the sad part is you schmucks would probably lyingly call yourselves skeptics if asked.

Entire libertarian (or Libertarian) movement is the intellectual pap that the communists fed us, with a larger helping of self-righteous ******** than even they felt comfortable with.