From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:47:04 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Jury duty considered harmful, or at least rare
Message-ID: <19980924015428.2767.qmail@hades.rpini.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

> 
> At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
> 
> >Yeah.  The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases,
> >the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying
> >in cases when I don't know the facts as well.  Of course, getting
> >somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury
> >is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals.
> 
> I last served on a jury in 1973, 25 years ago, no doubt before many readers
> of Cypherpunks were born.
> 
> And I've only received a single _possible_ summons since, in the 25 years
> since that  one jury appearance.
> 
> Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have served on several
> juries in the same time. The Poisson, as expected, or something more human?
> 
> Jury nullifying minds want to know.

That is almost enough to make the more paranoid among us think that maybe
they have a "do not summon" list. They basically have this anyway with the
prosecution vetoing possible jurors. If you're on it, you just aren't
summoned. People on that list would be people of libertarian mindsets,
politically outspoken people, Cypherpunks, professional people, etc.

If they do have a list, I'd kind of like to be on it. I'm a college
student, and I _can't_ serve on a jury for more than a day or so. The same
goes for doctors, corporate executives, and others.

There is an inherent flaw in the jury system. You get summoned and are
legally required to blow the entire day down at the courthouse. If you're
a student you miss classes, and if you have a job you miss that too. You
have to pay for transportation, parking, food, and whatever else you need. 
In return, you get paid something like $3, which often isn't even enough
to cover the parking and get told every five minutes that this or that
will get you, as a juror or potential juror, thrown in jail.

Meanwhile, if you're a doctor, scientist, college student, lawyer, or hold
any other professional position you're thrown off most of the time. If you
have a decent job or if you're in school, forget about it, because if
you're tied up for more than a day or so you _just can't do it_. They
don't want people who know that juries are capable of nullification. They
don't want people who can determine that the evidence of one side or the
other is suspect. They don't want people who will actually look at the
facts rather than the emotion of the opening and closing arguments. The
prosecution sure as hell doesn't want anybody who will look at whether a
law should exist in the first place.

"Hey, Doctor! Um, I have to serve on a jury. Can you take all my patients
for the next six months while I'm locked in a hotel room? Oh, and I need
to still get my full salary to pay my bills. Thanks, buddy." Um, no.

So you basically wind up with juries which are stacked with welfare
recipients, stupid people, and retirees. A jury of retirees may work, but
the others surely don't.

When the trial actually starts, the average juror, regardless of what
council may tell them about due process, is usually biased in favor of the
prosecution, especially if the government is claiming that the defendant
is an evil child molestor. If it's a case involving technology, you get a
bunch of bogus "experts" up there which say what council wants to be said,
because real "experts" refuse to dumb down their testimony to a
kindergarden level.

"Mr. May, will you please explain -- in layman's terms -- exactly how the
microchip fabrication process works?"

"Well, we start with..." 

"I'm sorry to stop you, sir. Can you please explain to the jury -- in
layman's terms -- what a transistor is?" 

"Well, in this context it often acts as a switch for an electronic
circuit, but it can also--"

"Would you please explain in layman's terms what a circuit is?" 

Argh. 

Can you imagine trying to be a defense expert in a cryptography case with
a bunch of jurors who can barely read, are unemployed, hate "nerds," and
beat the "geeks" up in high school, while the prosecution is constantly
screaming that the defendant is a kiddy porn trader and you're expected to
dumb your expert testimony down to kindergarden level?