Just a Mort |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahh Jury duty. It was abolished in Singapore.
Here's some Jury horror stories
That being said the Jury system is supposed to put your case in the common man and sometimes they understand better then the cold machinations of the laws do
Studied law, had to say my piece.
Just a Mort |
Oh. So getting the phone line back on was as simple as changing the telephone line to our old telco modem,while the new Telco ports it over. The TV is still going to be down for 48 hours minimum.
The issue was I had to skip a gym jog and travel an hour to get home to stick the phone line in the old telco modem because my mom kicked up a huge fuss on being unable to understand instructions to do so over the phone. Even demanding for the new Telco to send a guy over to do it(yeah right like it's gonna happen).
Needless to say I wasn't pleased about it.
Freehold DM |
NobodysHome wrote:Don't get me started on microwaves and smoke.
At HQ, microwave popcorn is banned, and a fireable offense. Why? Because people keep making it, burning it, setting off the fire alarm, and causing the evacuation of 1000+ employees from the building for at least half an hour.
At a conservative estimate of $50/hour per employee (this IS a tech firm), that's a $25,000 bag of popcorn.
Yet it happens almost every month. Because people are idiots.
In this case, I had gone home for lunch, and was cooking whiskey peppercorn sausages in a skillet (used olive oil) on the gas stove top. As soon as I lifted the lid to flip them the first time I found out that the butcher shop they were purchased from apparently had infused the sausages with enough whiskey to create 3-foot tall flames in my skillet. And we have one of those giant microwaves that acts as the hood for the stove.
So mistakes have been made.
Yikes.
NobodysHome |
Well, what was most interesting to me was Drejk's claim that "juries of your peers" go back to Roman days.
I thought they came along with the Magna Carta in 1215, because the peasants were sick of being judged by nobles.
Trials have always been dog-and-pony shows, but my impression was that before 1215 they were performed in front of jaded audiences who'd already seen one too many dog-and-pony shows.
Just a Mort |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually trial by Jury was present even in Ancient Greece and that may have been the biggest jury ever..
NobodysHome |
Actually trial by Jury was present even in Ancient Greece and that may have been the biggest jury ever..
Interesting... I have learned something new today! Woo hoo!
Drejk |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
American trial by jury is probably descendant of Anglo-Saxon system which might have been developed from earlier Germanic models in parallel to Nordic things. Idea of being judged by your peers was strong and conflicted with idea of divinely granted royal authority to govern and judge as the monarch's pleasure.
Just a Mort |
Yay! Snow expected Saturday!
Why am I excited?
I've gotten a sizable raise after every snowfall so far, pretty soon I'm going to be making Nobodyshome type money.
Maybe I should join you shovelling snow... Work out and get paid for it. Mmmmph...
Not sure how I function in cold weather though.
I think my Dad would make a decent snow shoveler, as would my uncle but the rest of the family has a long way to go.
Drejk |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is mine. He was a rower in his school times and he retained a lot of strength. That is a problem because he is inherently incapable of understanding that other people don't have his strength or endurance (he's 65 and still stronger and more durable than a lot of Englishmen in the factory where he works, though he slowly gets worse).
Orthos |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vanykrye wrote:There are some beverage companies that attempt to sell their version of iced tea in a can, just like they would soda. They're horrible and wrong for doing so, but they do it.I love Arizona green tea.
I'm with Freehold here. Arizona's canned teas are amazing. I've tried almost every flavor they sell and most of them I love.
Just a Mort |
So is mine. He was a rower in his school times and he retained a lot of strength. That is a problem because he is inherently incapable of understanding that other people don't have his strength or endurance (he's 65 and still stronger and more durable than a lot of Englishmen in the factory where he works, though he slowly gets worse).
Meh I'm passably durable. Sure I don't really have the strength to unscrew tight screws, but I can usually figure a way to open my stuff, generally with a rubber band and if push comes to shove I can cart 50 kg(110 lbs) of chest of drawers in several batches, even if the biggest one is around 37 lbs. And if you want me to paddy paw all day, assuming I'm not carrying too much(<5 kg), I'm pretty game too.
NobodysHome |
Sometime last year I opened a jury summons...that had been delivered months earlier.
I've never been on a jury and would really like to, so I was really bummed.
But I guess good to know that the state of Arizona sees it more of an invitation than a duty...
I suspect it's more that Arizona is just like California: So many people skip out on it that it's not worth the paperwork to prosecute them all.
Unfortunately, being on a jury isn't particularly fun, simply because the trials are pretty much all about, "This is why my client did it, so you should find him not guilty anyway."
At least the trials GothBard and I have been on.
For me, it was a guy who'd escaped from a minimum-security prison "to protect his mother from an abusive boyfriend". Anyone who knows me knows that kind of excuse isn't going to get a lot of traction. (Er, you *are* in a PRISON!!! You *might* be able to report this issue to THE POLICE, who are better-equipped to handle it than YOU ARE!!)
Fortunately, the fact that he hadn't come within 200 miles of his mother and was arrested in a motel room with two underage girls and a shoebox full of drugs pretty much sealed his fate. We walked into the jury room, I asked, "Is there anyone here who doesn't think he's guilty?", we elected a different foreman (because I was obviously biased), and convicted him in all of 5 minutes. Even worse for him, I was juror #1. So there's a tactic they use where the defense demands a "roll call" from the jury to prove that they aren't being coerced. But that means looking the defendant square in the eye and saying, "Guilty", so it's mainly a tactic to get more timid jurists to back down.
With me as #1, he was doomed.
For GothBard, it was another, "This guy is obviously guilty, but here are the mitigating circumstances that make it OK."
She was foreman, and she found it incredibly irritating because they had an 11-1 vote for conviction within 5 minutes, but the twelfth juror was a flower child who was all about how terrible prison was, and how the system was broken, and they really shouldn't be sending him to prison in any case, and HOW DID SHE GET ON A JURY!?!?!?
And even THEN, GothBard convinced her that the guilty verdict really was "the right thing to do" and convicted him.
It's interesting because this is the California Bay Area, and we seem to have nothing but stupid slam-dunk cases here. There are SOOOOO many cases of wrongful conviction in the U.S., I cannot believe that both trials we sat in on were basically the defendant saying, "Well, yes, I did commit the crime, but here's why I did it...."
Not exactly riveting trial material.
captain yesterday |
captain yesterday wrote:Maybe she's trying to get rid of ice and didn't have enough salt?Lady down the street was just spotted pouring boiling water in a ring around her car.
And the sidewalk, although I'm not quite sure icy sidewalks will inhibit Illuminati vampire assassins.
No, she was purposely icing the sidewalk, that stretch of sidewalk was dry as a bone earlier.
Alu'Vien Darkstar |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:No, she was purposely icing the sidewalk, that stretch of sidewalk was dry as a bone earlier.captain yesterday wrote:Maybe she's trying to get rid of ice and didn't have enough salt?Lady down the street was just spotted pouring boiling water in a ring around her car.
And the sidewalk, although I'm not quite sure icy sidewalks will inhibit Illuminati vampire assassins.
Let no stone be left bereft of the Blizzard-Maiden's grasp.
Freehold DM |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Freehold DM wrote:I'm with Freehold here. Arizona's canned teas are amazing. I've tried almost every flavor they sell and most of them I love.Vanykrye wrote:There are some beverage companies that attempt to sell their version of iced tea in a can, just like they would soda. They're horrible and wrong for doing so, but they do it.I love Arizona green tea.
HOLY SHIT WE BOTH LIKE THE SAME THING ITS A CHRISTMAS MIRACLE
The Vagrant Erudite |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better a criminal escape than an innocent be punished. I like the unanimous system.
And we STILL have people wrongly convicted proven innocent later with DNA evidence.
Which BTW should mean you don't have to work or pay taxes for life and your family gets a few million from the justice system (not taxes directly but specifically from the police and court systems) so they think a little harder about how they steamroll people in court.
Vidmaster7 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I have very little faith in the justice system. Mostly because I constantly see the same crime get a variety of different punishments. If it was working correctly it would be more uniform. Plus I think anything that is a crime that just affects you (thinking of primarily drug use related crimes) is ridiculous. As long as your not hurting anyone else who cares?
Just a Mort |
The same act can be a different crime depending on the circumstances it is committed.
Case 1:
I see you walking down the street, don’t like your face, so I rip your throat out. You die. I am charged for murder.
Case 2:
I’m intoxicated, and accidentally bump into you, knocking you off a bridge and into the water. You die. It becomes manslaughter, because I wasn’t in control of my actions (due to my intoxication). Though there could possibly be some fault on my part depending on how I was intoxicated , i.e if I went to a bar to drink, got drunk, that’s why I was intoxicated, then yeah I’d still face manslaughter charges. However, if someone spiked my water, I drank it unknowingly, then got intoxicated, it would fall under involuntary automatism, in which I would not be charged as I was not at fault.
Case 3:
You come after me with a knife and try to rob me. I panic and punch you in the chest. You die. I do not face any criminal liability as I was acting in self defense.
Case 4:
You have been abusing me for years (cutting pieces of fur off me so you can make yourself a pair of shoes). Eventually I get so fed up I start plotting revenge and pour kerosene on you while you sleep and set you on fire. You die. I am charged for murder, but it is reduced to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. That is because your constant abuse had cause my mental state to be unbalanced such as to make me less unanswerable to the crime and so qualify for a reduced charge.
Actual case: R v Ahluwalia
In all cases, you end up dead and I am the one that caused it, but the punishments are not uniform due to the differing circumstances around the case.
But honestly in all 4 cases do you think I deserve the same punishment?
Just a Mort |
From the surface it looks like the same crime because my actions caused your death. Whatever they might be though intentions and circumstances make all the difference.
Of course assuming all circumstances were the same then two people should face same punishment for the crime, irregardless of colour/sex etc. Though low IQ could also possibly give diminished responsibility as a defense.
As per all are equal before the law.
Just a Mort |
That was actually one of the arguments about having a jury. What if the judge is someone who might be biased against you(colour issues, possibly differing backgrounds) and passes a judgement unfavourable to you because of that bias?
And also that it is easier to bribe a single judge then a whole lot of jury.