>>>>>>>>I take it you don't view it as a duty of all able citizens?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Quite the contrary and I'm surprised you would read that into what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This was intended as sort of a "serious joke." The sad part is that so many do not regard jury duty as a civic duty. The result is juries not as competent as what would result if so many qualified people didn't shirk their civic duty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jury duty is designed as a "circuit breaker" in our system to prevent tyranny by the prosecution and judiciary.
>>>>>>If you can't get 12 people off the street to go along with "the law" it won't get enforced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I understand it, it still works that way in England.
>>>>>>The only question that jurors are asked is:
>>>>>>"Can you be fair to both the Crown and the Defense?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the US system, the lawyers use Voir Dire (jury selection questioning) as an exercise in jury stacking.
>>>>>>If you can choose the jurors, and choose which facts those jurors see, you can end up enforcing laws that many people do not agree with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you pulled 12 random people off the street, your odds of getting drug possession convictions would be very low.
>>>>>>The odds of randomly getting 12 random people to ALL impose the death sentence is extremely low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet, we just let the judiciary hand-pick jurors that are "death qualified."
>>>>>>Same with enforcing drug prohibition laws that a large percentage of citizens would never enforce on their fellow citizens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point of a jury trial is not to manage to get 12 citizens to rubber-stamp decisions by judges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet that is what happens - with judges and lawyers able to go through hundred of people to cherry pick jurors, and with judges able to exclude true and undisputed evidence, they can get any verdict they want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For an example of why it is important to maintain the independence of the jury, look at the mess that was the Ed Rosenthal case.
>>>>>>http://jurygeek.blogspot.com/2006/04/ninth-circuit-recognizes-juror.html
>>>>>>Seven jurors heard the facts that had been kept from them - and were on the courthouse steps holding a press conference a few days after the case to blast their own decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One of the jurors said:
>>>>>>“Last week, I did something so profoundly wrong that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. I helped send a man to prison who does not belong there.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ultimately, the 9th circuit court recognized that juror independence had been interfered with and reversed the decision.
>>>>>>Ironically, it was some bad advice from one of the juror's neighbors that the 9th circuit based their decision on.
>>>>>>The real problem with that case is that the judge and prosecutors were able to suppress very true and very relevant facts from the jury - that is the travesty of the Ed Rosenthal case. They prevented the jury from doing it's job, up to and including jury nullification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My point is that people don't talk a lot about the erosion of fundamental rights and responsibilities of us as citizens and jurors.
>>>>>>There is no way to discuss it without sounding like a paranoid nutjob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But people do recognize that the present system is designed to reduce their fundamental responsibilities to fellow citizens into a rubber stamp and are refusing to participate as jurors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can you blame them?
>>>>>
>>>>>Really excellent points. I don't blame lawyers for trying to stack juries in their favor, since the system allows them to do so and they work in service of their clients, but the system should be changed. They should pretty much seat the first 12 people unless there is a clear reason to exclude someone.
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. What if the trial is for a 30 year old mother of 4 who was physically abused for years and years and she fought back and killed her husband. Now if the first 12 potential jurors are all mothers in their early 30s who are married to abusive husbands, how impartial or balanced is that? Or the first 12 are all the abusive husbands? A jury of all men? I can think of other examples as well but that was a quick one.
>>>>
>>>>With both sides dismissing and accepting, at least it gets some appearance of a somewhat balanced jury.
>>>
>>>That is the kind of clear reason I meant. Those people would be dismissed as unsuitable for the specific case. As would a doctor in a medical malpractice case, etc.
>>
>>Hmmm... clear reason, huh? Well then I suppose you're saying (in Tracy's example), that the abusive husbands are all easily recognisable and can be dismissed pretty quickly? Or, if not so recognisable, then when the lawyer asks if he abuses his wife, he'll reply, "Of course, doesn't everybody?", and then he can be quickly dismissed.
>>
>>My point is, in many instances, and Tracy's example is a good one, how exactly do you find the 'clear reason for dismissal' without voire dire?
>
>In a perfect system -- and we both understand this is an imperfect world -- I would have disallowed Tracy's request. And I would have nailed the hell out of her employer if they tried to strongarm her into continuing her work tasks regardless. I believe that is illegal, even in North Carolina.

I think we're talking about two different things. When I referred to Tracy's example, I was talking about her example of the abusers being on the jury, and your saying that they would be dismissed for 'clear reasons'.