Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Ignorance or what?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I am truely sorry to disappoint you Happy, but I believe you'll see things my way if you take a few things into consideration. By allowing the citizenry to serve on our juries, we allow their bias an prejudices to creep in. Such a system allowed the unabridged mistreatment of blacks for over century after the civil war. It also allows for emotion, rather than intellect, to decide the out come of cases. Further, it takes a lifetime of studying the law to truly understand it in an applicable sense, but we let people with 8th grade educations, and only enough familiarity with the law as a three day trial can afford, make critical decisions regarding complex legal issues. There is a reason why England did away with their jury system. And we are already heading in that direction. Many contracts today require any disputes regarding the contract to be settled by an arbitor. No appellate court (including the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court) has a jury anymore. In fact, not every state trial court enpanels a jury. We are even moving closer to a legal class system, with all federal judges now being appointed for life so as to remove the threat of political influence.

Would you want someone who hasn't been to medical school diagnosing your health problems? Or how about a someone investing your retirement that doesn't have an MBA or doesn't have a securities license? The law is the same way. It is too improtant, the consequences too great, to leave in the hands of the masses.

And it's not arrogance. It's a reasonable thought based on entirely reasonable analysis.


I guess our political leaders shouldn't be elected either, after all the ignorant unwashed masses vote based on emotion too. Lets just make Obama king and be done with it. :shootme:

The founders of our country were so silly to think that power belonged in the hands of the people as a whole rather than in the hands of the elite few. What a simplistic and illogical concept. :icon_rolleyes:

Just a thought, but "MAYBE" if it truly takes a lifetime studying the law to understand the law in an applicable sense, MAYBE, just MAYBE, the law has been overly complicated by "smart" people who have twisted it to the point it no longer makes common sense. We always COULD throw all the twisted and excessively complicated mess of legislation out and get things back to a more reasonable and understandable level but then what would the lawyers do? :saint2: Surely the country would fall apart without politicians to pass tens of thousands of pages of new legislation for us every year and without lawyers innumerable to tell us what it all means. :icon_rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members



I guess our political leaders shouldn't be elected either, after all the ignorant unwashed masses vote based on emotion too. Lets just make Obama king and be done with it. :shootme:

The founders of our country were so silly to think that power belonged in the hands of the people as a whole rather than in the hands of the elite few. What a simplistic and illogical concept. :icon_rolleyes:

Just a thought, but "MAYBE" if it truly takes a lifetime studying the law to understand the law in an applicable sense, MAYBE, just MAYBE, the law has been overly complicated by "smart" people who have twisted it to the point it no longer makes common sense. We always COULD throw all the twisted and excessively complicated mess of legislation out and get things back to a more reasonable and understandable level but then what would the lawyers do? :saint2: Surely the country would fall apart without politicians to pass tens of thousands of pages of new legislation for us every year and without lawyers innumerable to tell us what it all means. :icon_rolleyes:


Let's go back to the Bible. God wanted to be King, but the people wanted a King they could see, touch, feel.....so Saul was annointed King............God didn't have any problem ruling and allowing "judges" to make the decisions in times of disagreement. But the people kept murmuring and complaining, so......God let them have exactly what they wanted. In turn......what an awful price they paid and we're still paying the price today. Now......our supreme court judges are appointed by "the king".....president.... if you will, and his appointment is approved by majority vote of the senate). I think the federal judges in superior court are appointed without senate approval and the district court judges are voted on by the people (someone may need to correct me on that). Regardless, with what we have "in the entire world", is man's fault........had our forefathers (the ones back in Samuel's day, and I'm not blaming them.....we'd have done the same thing, no doubt), trusted God and let God "rule", then we definitely wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. And until the Lord "rules" with the "rod of iron", we'll have to keep praying and trusting HIM until that day comes. PtWild......I agree that we need you and your peers and I personally thank you for your knowledge of law, but I have to say that Jesus is still the "ruling class" and always will be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am glad there are regular citizens on jurors because if decisions was made between professionals in court and don't try to make it clear why this person is guilty to average people, They will not know what going on, All they know is that people are going to jail. There would a riots. Getting the Average people involve and making sure they understand, then they know why this person have to go to jail or why this person is free. it is up to the professionals (polices, doctors, lab workers, etc.) to make sure the person is innocent (by checking on evidences) so he does NOT go to jail.

It would like a doctor and nurse talking together about my condition, and i ask "what's going on??" he will turn to me and say, you wouldn't understand because you don't have the education to understand, you just need to accept whatever treatments I give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



pt, that is absolutely one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard, and I really am surprised that it's coming from you!

The system we have now works when it is done right: our forefathers set up the system of trial by a jury of peers - did it ever occur to you that possibly they did that BECAUSE they didn't want judges making law? Hmmmm - could that even be why they created the separation of powers on the federal level?

Our legal system had become inferior because judges have adopted the idea that they can legislate from the bench. And because too many people on the jury don't understand that they can actually follow the constitution while they are in the jury.

It's a real shame, pt, that our forefathers were so off the mark to create an inferior justice system. Not.


PT...you are a lawyer right? And you do not believe in the jury system? The jury system is one of the best in the world. I put a large amount of faith in a jury. A jury is to decide the facts of a case, not the law. You know that as well as I. A judge interprets and applies the law, the jury the facts.

I put much more faith in the ability of 12 jurors to determine the facts than one judge.

I am honestly astonished. The move towards arbitration is an extremely dangerous thing. It takes away the right to jury trial, and I believe is unconstitutional.

I am astonished by this. Have you talked to jurors after a case? I have, and I can tell you without exception that every juror I have talked to takes their job extermely seriously. TO put that decision into the hands of one person, or a judge, is extremely dangerous. That opens the system up to further corruption and the "good ole boy" system.

While I do not trust a jury to know and understand the full extent of the law, they are fully capable of sorting out the facts. That has always been the job of the jury. The judge decides law, the jury the facts. If the judge is wrong on the law, a person can appeal and the court of appeals will say he either applied the law correctly or incorrectly.

We have one of the best judicial systems in the world. I cannot fathom doing away with our constitutional right to a jury trial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



PT...you are a lawyer right? And you do not believe in the jury system? The jury system is one of the best in the world. I put a large amount of faith in a jury. A jury is to decide the facts of a case, not the law. You know that as well as I. A judge interprets and applies the law, the jury the facts.

I put much more faith in the ability of 12 jurors to determine the facts than one judge.

I am honestly astonished. The move towards arbitration is an extremely dangerous thing. It takes away the right to jury trial, and I believe is unconstitutional.

I am astonished by this. Have you talked to jurors after a case? I have, and I can tell you without exception that every juror I have talked to takes their job extermely seriously. TO put that decision into the hands of one person, or a judge, is extremely dangerous. That opens the system up to further corruption and the "good ole boy" system.

While I do not trust a jury to know and understand the full extent of the law, they are fully capable of sorting out the facts. That has always been the job of the jury. The judge decides law, the jury the facts. If the judge is wrong on the law, a person can appeal and the court of appeals will say he either applied the law correctly or incorrectly.

We have one of the best judicial systems in the world. I cannot fathom doing away with our constitutional right to a jury trial.



Absolutely spot-on, kind! Thanks for your input.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



PT...you are a lawyer right? And you do not believe in the jury system? The jury system is one of the best in the world. I put a large amount of faith in a jury. A jury is to decide the facts of a case, not the law. You know that as well as I. A judge interprets and applies the law, the jury the facts.

I put much more faith in the ability of 12 jurors to determine the facts than one judge.

I am honestly astonished. The move towards arbitration is an extremely dangerous thing. It takes away the right to jury trial, and I believe is unconstitutional.

I am astonished by this. Have you talked to jurors after a case? I have, and I can tell you without exception that every juror I have talked to takes their job extermely seriously. TO put that decision into the hands of one person, or a judge, is extremely dangerous. That opens the system up to further corruption and the "good ole boy" system.

While I do not trust a jury to know and understand the full extent of the law, they are fully capable of sorting out the facts. That has always been the job of the jury. The judge decides law, the jury the facts. If the judge is wrong on the law, a person can appeal and the court of appeals will say he either applied the law correctly or incorrectly.

We have one of the best judicial systems in the world. I cannot fathom doing away with our constitutional right to a jury trial.


while I totally agree with you, I think he is saying that he believes that we should only select jurors with a college education. Doctors, lawyers, Nurses, etc. ..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



while I totally agree with you, I think he is saying that he believes that we should only select jurors with a college education. Doctors, lawyers, Nurses, etc.

If you read what he said again, you will notice that he would like to do away with the jury system....

trc - pt might be just pushing buttons, but I think he really feels this way. I don't agree with him, and he does push buttons at times (don't we all), but he usually is pretty forthright about what he believes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know another lawyer (who happened to be my facebook friend) who thinks I, me, yes me should do jury.. I told him that i can't hear very well and my language is limited. he was telling me all the options i have and that it was no excuse. wow, and he is a die-hard Obama fan too. LOL

actually I was called to be a jury duty before, but I made my audiologist write them a note, so they made my husband to take my place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


If you read what he said again, you will notice that he would like to do away with the jury system....

trc - pt might be just pushing buttons, but I think he really feels this way. I don't agree with him, and he does push buttons at times (don't we all), but he usually is pretty forthright about what he believes.


Well, if this how the majority of lawyers, judges, and lawmakers across our country think, then it is more than a little scary! However, it does make more sense why our gov't is moving as rapidly as it is down the path of socialism/communism......they all think we are too stupid to know how to do anything! What an insult!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


If you read what he said again, you will notice that he would like to do away with the jury system....

trc - pt might be just pushing buttons, but I think he really feels this way. I don't agree with him, and he does push buttons at times (don't we all), but he usually is pretty forthright about what he believes.


yes, I read that part, but I thought he wanted to replace the jury system with something else that would involve more educated people.

btw, I just read from physorg (http://www.physorg.com/news169394320.html) that poorer people still are less likely to become doctors and lawyers than people who come from wealthy family. So that mean we still don't have diversity in the law system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Well, if this how the majority of lawyers, judges, and lawmakers across our country think, then it is more than a little scary! However, it does make more sense why our gov't is moving as rapidly as it is down the path of socialism/communism......they all think we are too stupid to know how to do anything! What an insult!


Not all of them think that way. Like i mentioned, one democrat lawyer I know support the jury system if it is done right. In fact, he thinks I and everyone else should do jury duty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Someone once told me that he didn't want to do jury duty. The judge asked him a question if he was racist (I'm not sure the exact wording of that question but it mean the same thing) , and he told them yes he was, and that's how he got out of it. He really was racist so it was a good thing he tried to get out of jury duty.

Anyway, that's just prove that they don't really select people who are extremely bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...