Its actually not, I’m just curious because they obviously try to screen out anyone even superficially aware of it so it raises the interesting question of how that would play out societally, like would the death penalty leverage essentially be erased and in what other ways would it affect jurisprudence and application of the law
Have you ever been selected for jury duty? I haven’t, so I can’t speak to the screening process.
In cases of capital punishment I wouldn’t be surprised if they screen out people who are against it, since it would be a conflict of interest. A jury’s only purpose is to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime, not to weigh in on sentencing. Although I’m pretty sure sentencing comes later anyway.
I believe it is to the same extent that the President of the United States is immune in carrying out official duties and with equal breadth and arbitraryness. To accept anything less licks the boot that says all are equal under the law but the President is King
I find it interesting that simply having been involved in litigation (I got sued once for an art piece) seems to be enough that I go home every time I’m called for jury duty.
They really do want people with no idea.
I’ve been called in for jury duty a number of times, made it to the courtroom a couple of times, and was seated on one of them. None of those times did anybody ask if we were aware of jury nullification, or anything that was related to it.
Its actually not, I’m just curious because they obviously try to screen out anyone even superficially aware of it so it raises the interesting question of how that would play out societally, like would the death penalty leverage essentially be erased and in what other ways would it affect jurisprudence and application of the law
Have you ever been selected for jury duty? I haven’t, so I can’t speak to the screening process.
In cases of capital punishment I wouldn’t be surprised if they screen out people who are against it, since it would be a conflict of interest. A jury’s only purpose is to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime, not to weigh in on sentencing. Although I’m pretty sure sentencing comes later anyway.
I believe it is to the same extent that the President of the United States is immune in carrying out official duties and with equal breadth and arbitraryness. To accept anything less licks the boot that says all are equal under the law but the President is King
I find it interesting that simply having been involved in litigation (I got sued once for an art piece) seems to be enough that I go home every time I’m called for jury duty. They really do want people with no idea.
Huh
I’ve been called in for jury duty a number of times, made it to the courtroom a couple of times, and was seated on one of them. None of those times did anybody ask if we were aware of jury nullification, or anything that was related to it.