Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

no name joe

Ignorance or what?

Recommended Posts




So everyone with a lot of education and from a supposedly higher class are now automatically "snobs." This is a prime example of a biased opinion.


And yours isn't? That we have an inferior justice system because uneducated people sit on the jury instead of just letting a judge decide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



And yours isn't? That we have an inferior justice system because uneducated people sit on the jury instead of just letting a judge decide?


LuAnne, Don't let the little duffer push your buttons. No one is that foolish to believe it is better to have a handful of the ruling class lord over the rest. That went out with middle ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Your first mistake is using lay dictionaries to define words. Dictionaries are irrelevant now. Context is everything. Although we can be said to have "established" the common law in that we have developed precedent, we cannot be said to have invented common law any more than we can be said to have created "honesty" or "equity" or "fairness." Another problem with your "definitions" (let's just call them "unsubstantiated opinions") is that in England you don't have juries, so a judge will be setting the precedent. However, here in the U.S., we are still so immature and foolish that we leave important decisions to uneducated biased people. Now, even these decisions end up being made by judges in the end, but only after appeal upon appeal. Our legal system will remain inferior until there is a designated group, or class, that becomes the sole arbitors of all things legal. Lawyer, judge and jury all in one, without any influence from the laity.


Dictionaries are irrelevant? Must be something concocted by this new generation........this generation is devoid of anything that conveys a "standard" now, I guess. At any rate, any legal system that functions outside of God's standards, (especially when it directly opposes them), is "inferior".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



LuAnne, Don't let the little duffer push your buttons. No one is that foolish to believe it is better to have a handful of the ruling class lord over the rest. That went out with middle ages.


Oh, I know - I'm not angry, just kinda surprised at him. I wonder, though, if it's really true that this type of attitude went out with the middle ages...look at what's going on in DC!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



LuAnne, Don't let the little duffer push your buttons. No one is that foolish to believe it is better to have a handful of the ruling class lord over the rest. That went out with middle ages.


Are you sure about it going out with the middle ages? Because when I look at the decisions our country, no, our gov't, is making.........it sure makes me wonder! Also, if you look at the whole history of mankind.........our gov't today is the exception, not the rule......the other "exceptions".....like Rome ended, well, you know how THAT ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

believe me, I wouldn't let a doctor take complete control of my healthcare. I am part of the decision too.

and beside, If England had complete control of every decisions they make and ignore what the uneducated people think, there would be riot. it had happened before (I think in France) and it will happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.


Well, I understand your reasoning but disagree wholeheartedly! Education does not an intellect make. I've know lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. who are very educated but have absolutley no common sense.

Adhering to the law and making a dispassionate decision is not only in the realm of the "educated."

Sorry, but I do not and will not agree with you.

I know that appellate courts don't have juries. I may be wrong, but I don't believe they ever did. But under the constitution citizens of this country are guaranteed a trial by a jury of their peers. That means people who are their equals - in age, possibly in education, etc.

As to someone operating on me without education - that isn't even a remotely good comparison! Jurors aren't professionals. They are peers, taken from a pool. Different animal altogether.

The system would change if the courts would adhere to the constitution...and if the people who made up the jury knew what they could do under the constitution. THAT is the education they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought for a while they only selected "high class" jurors and refuse to select the uneducated class , especially black and women, probably why there were so many prejudice in their decisions over the years... racism can come from higher class and they do have law degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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. ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...