Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have jury duty tomorrow... I don't wanna go... It's gonna be so boring, I just know it... emo

I've never had jury duty before. Aside from it being super boring, I'm afraid it'll be some big crazy case and I'll have someone's life in my hands or something and I won't make the right judgement. I hope I'm not chosen. Or if I am, I hope it'll be some lame civil case or something. crying

Any of you guys ever had jury duty? Is it as horrible as TV makes it out to be? (I know... nothing is really as horrible as TV makes it out to be... rolleyes )

I wanna go!

Please let me, it's usually funny as hell or stuff that makes you think. It's rarely boring.

Also it's not horrible stuff and the decision is shared. =]

I've never been, too young, but my family have told me awesome stories about them.

Well, I just got back from the courthouse. I wasn't chosen for the jury. Although now I'm kinda disappointed. I want to know how the case turns out. ninja

It was a criminal case involving highschool boys beating up another kid to the point of hospitalization and filming it (which is apparently a big trend recently). The one I would have been serving on was for the alledged filmer. It was a very interesting case. The defendant was a church-goer and volunteered at a soup kitchen and seemed altogether like a nice kid. I wanna know if he did it or not.

I think I wasn't chosen because I have a friend who was the victim in an assault case and also my dad coincidentally works with the defendant's dad. Also my uncertainty of whether I could tell if a witness was being truthful in their testimony or not probably had something to do with it. I dunno for sure, they didn't tell me. *shrug*

Geez, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? stare

Why does it have to have something to do with his views at all? If he did, in fact, commit the crime, it could very well have been simply a typical teenage moment of complete and utter stupidity.

But of course, adults are perfectly capable of falling into the same (or worse) levels of stupidity. Stupidity is like an incurable plague or something. It's contagious and everything. It can even lead to death in many occasions. This could be worth doing a study. rolleyes *ends rant*

Church-going has very little to do with it...

But, sorry you weren't admitted to the League of Justice. Might have been interesting.

Are you aware of how popular that particular act is right now amongst teens? It's a big trend to film a kid getting beat up and put it on the internet. Teenager have an inexplicable need to get as much attention as they possibly can, positive or negative. By following a trend like this, they think they will be thought of as "cool" or "badass" by others. They want to be famous by putting something on the internet and getting it watched millions of times. THAT IS TEENAGE STUPIDIDTY. Caps for emphasis, not yelling.

And peer pressure is a HUGE problem today (and in the past). Kids are taught that they can do whatever they want by society (music, movies, books, TV, video games AND inattentive parents) and when a group of them is doing something stupid, the others want to join in so they won't be called a wuss or whatever. Kids do things like this and worse a lot more than you seem to be willing to admit.

And finally... We don't know whether this particular kid did do anything wrong at all! That's why he's on trial! He does not have any obligation to prove his innocence because he is already presumed to be innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt!

There are vast numbers of cases which go to court only to have the defendant found to be not guilty. The whole reason for having a trial in the first place is so that the police and whoever else can't just say "Well, this guy said you did it, so you're going to jail."

I mean, I have no idea what the evidence in this particular case is, but say for example, it was the defendant's camera that was found to have the video on it (or whatever). It's possible his camera was taken by a friend or sibling without his consent. Perhaps he was implicated by the attacker instead of the real filmer in order to protect that person (or because he doesn't like camera's owner). Maybe the defendant doesn't have a clue who actually took and used his camera, so he can't say anything other than "I didn't do it."

See why it's bad to just assume someone is guilty because they are on trial? Just because there was enough evidence to get a warrent (which doesn't require much) doesn't mean there is enough solid evidence to convict someone (which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt). It is entirely possible for an investigator to be wrong.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit disturbed by your apparent "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. You're probably not intending to come off like that, but you sort of are. neutral