voted "no". i think maybe the original idea was ok, but you're right - you almost never get a jury of your peers.
some countries have professional jurors - i don't know how well this works in actuality, but i like the idea.
Yes
No
Maybe
I really don't know
I write this after three days of Jury service which had me in a fury over
time lost, money lost, frivolous cases tried, a Jury of no ones peers. a system that simply doesn't work..
It was a nice introduction, how far the court system has come from days, when folks used to be tried by ordeal, burnt, or drowned to proclaim their innocence... and how amazing the justice system has come here in the states, from a time when minorities and women weren't even able to participate.. of course they had Diane sawyer and brian gumble or some other black dude to cement their point...by the end of my third day however, I was nostalgic for implementing those methods of torture upon both guilty and innocent alike... you should never be there for more than two days if they haven't chosen you by the end of the second day, but they decided to detain all of us for a third day...
How would I personally like to be tried in the case someone was suing me, say for making a hot cup of coffee and expecting them to be careful when drinking, or just recently not to wear your bejeweled panties on top of your head lest you end up with a corneal abrasion.. I am speaking of course of the lady suing victoria's secret for a 'flaw in the design of an under pants' she was 'about' to purchase
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_...468x1200179729
well, I wouldn't round up 12 random folks from the streets, and tell them this man has fever, malaise, a peculiar rash that started three days ago, blurry vision, and tinnitus, a history of smoking and alcohol abuse, a nissen fundoplication at the age of 33, he is married, with two kids, works in the ship industry, now go over in the next room and deliberate for a few hours on what it is you think is ailing him, after I have explained to you medicine in 2 hours or less...
if you find that absurd, why don't folks find deliberating in a civil or a federal trial or anything in between as absurd? Do you think Justice can be served by an 18 year old? how about 67 year old red necker on a trial for a Muslim?
well I say that, because I know, they never choose a Jury of someone's peers.. I have had many collegues get sued, never seen a doctor with a jury compsed of 12 doctors... NO you find folks who are clueless with personal bias, who give their word that they will be fair and impartial but in fact know nothing of justice, the law, and are given a carte blanche to decide someone's fate one way or the other...
without going into too much of the cases we were presented
1- a lady suing the city because she fell, think it is the city's fault suing for millions of course of tax payers money.. she doesn't even speak English, gets a court appointed spanish translator, and you put your work and duties aside, to sit there and judge this case... you be the judge if this is worth anyone's time or money for that matter.. because when they sue the city it comes out of your pocket.. Do you want to awars mrs Gonzales $5000,000?
2- the other case was a multi vehicle accident, where everyone is suing everyone and being countersuited by everyone and suing other folks in the car with them.. imagine family suing family, suing others, being sued by others.. accidents happen, they should indeed be paid indeed, but that is what insurance is for, to cover accidents, you shouldn't have to run someone bankrupt because you think they have a deep pocket and you've had it rough and this is your chance at making it big..
I have had it with the U.S court system.. or lack thereof..
same system that holds detainees at guantanamo without trial of 'their peers' is the same system that awards people millions for not having put the label 'hot coffee' on the cup or flaw in design in someone's underpants...
This is the syste the 'we the people' chose in lieu of the laws of God...
think about that folks, next time you have something scathing to add about some 'barbaric law' that you think should be made extinct!
cheers
voted "no". i think maybe the original idea was ok, but you're right - you almost never get a jury of your peers.
some countries have professional jurors - i don't know how well this works in actuality, but i like the idea.
I had to read the question several times and think about it.
Do you think a system run by jurors is fair?
My first impulse was to answer yes. because that is what it should be.
However, after carefull thought, I realised; what it should be and what it is are 2 different things.
So I answered no.
Did Mrs Gonzales get the money?
I was told by a colleague of mine 'not to worry' they never want medical professionals sitting on these, certainly no one who can influence outcome of the majority of jurors sitting in.. So to answer your Q, I didn't sit on her case, I was only there for the synopsis and the lawyer interrogation to see who in the audiance would grant his client the most favorable outcome.. 'ambulance chasers' want to get paid.. it is their bread and butter!format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
the people who sat for Mrs Gonzales ranged from 18 year olds to house wives, to retired gents there were three other doctors in the room, none of whom were chosen!
I don't have an idea the outcome of the trial, but someone behind me whispered something about it {'being OK to go after 'deep pockets' since the rest of us are suffering so much} I wonder if she knew that suing the city, meant in an indirect fashion that it is her pocket they were going after?!
Hey if they can sue whatever food industry for not having put 'hot' on a known hot beverage, I don't see why Mrs Gonzales couldn't sue the city for an obscene amount for 'falling'?
In the U.S anyone can sue anyone about anything and win!
'Fair' doesn't really play part in that equation!
cheers
Last edited by جوري; 06-21-2008 at 06:19 PM.
Yeah, but that's what juries are for. To put some common sense, human sympathy and fairness into the legal system.format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
The bad thing about it is that the lawyers capability to convince the jurors counts more than the evidence so many criminals can get away with their crime.
Last edited by Whatsthepoint; 06-21-2008 at 06:23 PM.
ONE of the problems is:
do you really want to be judged by 12 people that were too stupid to get out of jury duty?
[plagiarized from someone!]
What standards are we using to make sure that we have a just, fair system with the operative word here being 'comon sense'format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Some of the Muslims that were tried for so-called terroristic acts or running a 'terrorist cell' had no jury of their peers, in fact out of the lawyers concession, the arbiter (spokesperson) for one group of Jurors, went into the room and put an American flag in the middle of the table.. what do you think that signifies? in the very least, the most notable condition of this system wasn't met... i.e a 'Jury of someone's peers'
A colleague of mine got sued for $900,000 by a drug addict, because her twin infants were born with problems, her actual doctor had passed away and this 'oriental' doctor wasn't going to get a fair trial, in this case took place in down town baltimore if you understand at all the demographics of that area!
he is what they would deem an unfeeling deep pocket, even if he is $350,000 in debt from medical school bills, has a wife and children school and mortgage payment as well as liability insurance to pay on monthly basis.. Do they understand or even care about destroying someone's career and running him bankrupt or causing his liability insurance to go up and hospitals to think twice about hiring him? absolutely not
carry that through, with some of the other frivilous cases tried, as I have linked above for a flaw design in a thong or because a beverage is hot, or because some lazy slob who wants to free load fell and thinks that you and I should pay for it!
Sorry this system doesn't work at all.. it doesn't even have a 'shred of common sense' to it!
Indeed lawyers are akin to used car salesman.. I have seen them work the room well twice using all kinds of logical fallacies... that to me doesn't equal justice.. it is deceptive humbug!The bad thing about it is that the lawyers capability to convince the jurors counts more than the evidence so many criminals can get away with their crime.
If you wouldn't trust your medical diagnosis to 12 random folks off the street with very average learning, why would you entrust them with your fate?
cheers
Was your colleage found guilty?format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Just because everyone has the right to sue everyone on every basis imaginable, that doesn't mean the entire system doesn't work. Most "weird" lawsuits don't even get to court, and I a very low percentage of them actually winn the case.
That's true, however that's why there's the prosecution. And besides, there's 12 jurors, so there's a chance at least one of them will figure the lawyers arguments are flawed. I'm not sure on what basis the jurors are picked out, does education matter, I mean does every jury have to ahve a certain percentage of higher educated jurors or something like that?Indeed lawyers are akin to used car salesman.. I have seen them work the room well twice using all kinds of logical fallacies... that to me doesn't equal justice.. it is deceptive humbug!
aynway, as snakelegs said, a system of professional jurors is much better.
I studied law a bit, and I can say - no one really states that the law system is fair. It has tonnes of flaws, alot of them which you have stated. Very few people, if any, would argue a 100% fair legal system exists in our days in any of the developed countries (US/UK etc).
He was advised to settle by his lawer, he wasn't found guilty, but he told him in those exact words. "no down town court is going to rule in favor of a chinese doctor, over a poor beaten black woman with two children with disability' evidence of her drug abuse etc wouldn't have been admissible in court.format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Do you have some considerable statistics of the 'weird' lawsuits that don't even make it.. 'cause there I was two random days, with two very frivilous cases going through!
You have to understand that there is a huge volume of evidence that is hardly ever considered or is admissible in court, don't ask me why, that is what I was told.. I imagine people go to law school for 7 years for the same reason people go to med school for 8.. so that you can learn what isn't usually found on the net to lay people, otherwise we'd all be lawyers or all doctors, or all judges etcThat's true, however that's why there's the prosecution. And besides, there's 12 jurors, so there's a chance at least one of them will figure the lawyers arguments are flawed. I'm not sure on what basis the jurors are picked out, does education matter, I mean does every jury have to ahve a certain percentage of higher educated jurors or something like that?
aynway, as snakelegs said, a system of professional jurors is much better.
people should cultivate their talents in what they are good at, and that doesn't include sitting there and judging other people. No one has any business sitting there and executing laws unless that is what they do by profession!
Yes, I think it is about time this country considered its laws.
I spent $40 a day on cabs every day!
took time off under direct threat of fines and or imprisonment
sat for hours on end unable to even go to the bathroom as we were told, they will call on us randomly and if we don't answer we'll be marked awol and forced to come back
and forced to answer very personal questions about my person in front of a large audience, which I really believe what I do, what I wish to do, my personal views/prejudices etc are anyone's business!
The experience has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth, I doubt any poll I run here will make a difference whatsoever, but in a way it was /is a good vent for something I found nonsensical and extremely annoying!
cheers
I know that, that's another bad thing about the system. If evidence is collected behind schedule or in an anlawful manner etc, it won't count no matter how decisive it may be..You have to understand that there is a huge volume of evidence that is hardly ever considered or is admissible in court, don't ask me why, that is what I was told..
they have to ask questions so they can make sure jurors are free of potential bias.format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Yupformat_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I assure you that isn't the reason they ask you, I have alluded previousely that they don't want personalities that would tempt or influence the other jurors.. No one is free from bias, the lady who thought it ok to whipser the need to go after 'deep pockets' was in fact picked for the Mrs. Gonzales' case.. if your taxes go up as a result of Mrs. Gonzales and a few Mrs gonzales type, you'll know who was at fault..they have to ask questions so they can make sure jurors are free of potential bias.
cheers
Anyway, what alternative do you suggest?
I don't want to get into an unrealistic alternative for this country as it should be obvious what my personal belief for a just system is..format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
However for our purposes a system of 12 professional persons authorized to practice law would be a welcome alternative from what it currently is!
peace
I'm not familiar with the islamic court proceedings. Could you desribe them in short? Do islamic courts have juries ( I guess not), is there prosecution, defence, judges etc? Who decides whether the defendant is guilty?format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Last edited by Whatsthepoint; 06-21-2008 at 09:18 PM.
Could I describe to you in short Islamic court system (No I couldn't) for exact same reasons I don't think anyone short of persons authorized to practice law should be Jurors. I am simply not studied in Islamic jurisprudence... It requires that you go to school the same way you are required you go to school here to be a judge or a lawyer.format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I can tell you however that it is run on shura a ( consultatio) system as per verse .and consult with them on the matter" (3:159) and "those who conduct their affairs by counsel" (43:38)..
- "Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of a khalifa of God and in this respect all people are equal. No one takes precedence over another or can deprive him of his rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be formed in accordance with the will of the people and the authority of the state will only be an accretion of the powers of the people delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the government which will be run with their counsel and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will undertake the duty and obligation of the caliphate on their behalf: and when he loses this confidence he will have to quit and bow before their will. In this regard the political system of Islam is a perfect form of democracy - as perfect as a democracy can ever be." (Islamic Way of Life, p.44)
you may read this short brief page on the topic below.. however unrelated I still think it quite relevant...there are millions of books on the matter, but so we keep things in the 'brief'
I don't wish to use this to make a case for an Islamic state, rather highlight the mindless characteristics of the current one in existence!
sourceMilitary Dictatorship has no place in Islam
by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat (1983)
In Islam even the rule of God's religion cannot be imposed by force. In a well-known verse of Surah al-Baqarah it is said:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion (la ikraha fi ad-din)." (2:256)
As a result of this principle, if there are non-Muslims in an Islamic society they cannot be forced to become Muslims or follow Islamic law. Only people who freely accept Islam are bound by its blessed and noble teachings. Now, therefore, if God's rule cannot be forcefully imposed on people by anyone, how can a Muslim dictator have the right to impose his rule by military might?
In the exemplary period of the four rightly guided caliphs it was simply unthinkable that any individual, however good or great, would take over power by the use of military force. The four caliphs themselves were elected heads of state who enjoyed widespread support and respect. Hadrat Abu Bakr was elected in a free and open public gathering while Hadrat Omar, Uthman and Ali were elected by councils of trusted elders of the community. When the rightly guided caliph Amir Mu'awiyah nominated his son as the ruler, the Prophet's own grandson, Hadrat Imam Hussain, protested and as we all know gave his life rather than accept the rule of a man who, among other faults, did not come to power through proper means, i.e. through the election and support of the people.
This practice of the prophet's leading companions was in fact based on explicit guidance of the Holy Qur'an which requires that affairs of the Muslim community be run by public participation. In a chapter entitled Shura (consultation), the Holy Qur'an says of the Muslims that:
"...their affairs are run by mutual consultation." (42:38)
Even the Prophet Muhammad himself, who came in this world with an authority from God, is commanded in the Qur'an:
"...to take counsel with them (i.e. the people) in matters (of public concern)." (3:159)
It is clear from the above that in Islam, power primarily belongs to God and the people. even the Prophet's authority was derived from these two primary sources of power. When he spoke or acted as a messenger of God his authority was derived from God and when he spoke or acted as the head of the community his authority was derived from the people, by whose "counsel" he was bound. Since after the Prophet Muhammad died there is to be no other messenger or prophet of God, no one else will ever be able to speak or act with the authority of God and, therefore, from now on all Muslim rulers are as rulers (though not as individuals) completely bound by the counsel and will of the people.
In conducting shura in a society, effort should be made to involve as many members of the society as means of communication allow at a given time. Also, shura should be used in reaching decisions in as many matters as possible.
The first matter to be decided by shura in an Islamic society is, of course, the question of who will govern the society. A government that comes to power without due shura has no legitimacy in Islam, even though it conducts some shura in other matters. Consequently, the practice of Muslim dictators who first seize power by military force and then institute a "majlis-e-shura" or a controlled form of basic democracies through which only opinions favorable to the ruler are allowed to exist has absolutely no validity in Islam.
The views expressed above are not just the views of this insignificant writer. They are also the views of a majority of reputed Islamic scholars of all ages and places. Manlana A.A. Mawdudi (whose followers once unfortunately allied with a Pakistani military leader Zia's dictatorial rule) speaks for all these scholars when he writes:
"Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of a khalifa of God and in this respect all people are equal. No one takes precedence over another or can deprive him of his rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be formed in accordance with the will of the people and the authority of the state will only be an accretion of the powers of the people delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the government which will be run with their counsel and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will undertake the duty and obligation of the caliphate on their behalf: and when he loses this confidence he will have to quit and bow before their will. In this regard the political system of Islam is a perfect form of democracy - as perfect as a democracy can ever be." (Islamic Way of Life, p.44)
Of course, an Islamic society differs from a Western democracy in the important respect that while in the latter people make their own laws and constitutions, in the former, laws and constitution are based on divine guidance. But this in no way means that the will and wishes of the people count any less in an Islamic society than in a Western democracy, since if the Islamic society is formed on the Qur'anic principle: "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), then it is only by the free choice and wishes of the people that the society will derive its laws and constitution from the guidance of God as given through His blessed messenger.
Why some Muslims are not enthusiastic about democracy
Democracy is as much a requirement of Islamic teachings as prayer, zakat, abstinence from alcohol, usury, fornication, etc. Yet while every Muslim will agree that Islam enjoins prayer and zakat (welfare tax) and forbids alcohol, usury, fornication, etc., a great many Muslims would not say with the same categoricity that Islam requires a democratic system of government for a Muslim society. There are two reasons for this phenomenon.
First, democracy is a term most often used in the non-Muslim secularist West. For this reason, many Muslims have the impression that the idea of democracy is a peculiarly Western idea which is alien to Islam. But if, as we have shown above, Islam requires that the government of a Muslim country should have the confidence of the people and that its affairs should be run by public participation, then the idea of democracy is not at all alien to Islam but it is part and parcel. It is one of those ideas that happen to be present in both the Western tradition and Islam. If we do not like the term democracy, we can use some other term (such as shuriyyah or ummatism) but we cannot reject the democratic principle itself. Such a rejection would be tantamount to a rejection of an aspect of Islamic teachings.
Second, democracy is a very difficult system to preserve. Muslims could not preserve it beyond the time of the four rightly guided caliphs, after which the political power passed into the hands of autocratic rulers, sultans and kings. It then became dangerous to refer to the democratic principles of the Qur'an and to their practice by the leading companions of the Prophet. Ulama (Muslim scholars), therefore, spent more and more time talking about personal aspects of the Islamic religion - prayer, zakat, fasting, hajj, inheritance, etc., and avoided mentioning socio-political principles of Islam. As centuries passed under these conditions, people got used to having sultans, kings and dictators, so much so that now many of them are not even sure that dictatorship is totally un-Islamic.
Lesson from history
It is not only Islam that teaches us to adopt a democratic approach in running our affairs. History also teaches us the same lesson.
If we glance through past and recent history, it will become quickly obvious that more democratic nations, in which rights of the individual are better respected, prosper in the long run and become victorious over less democratic nations. Thus in the early days of Islam, Muslims respected the individual rights and enjoyed popular elected governments. As a result, they prospered and were victorious over autocratic Persian and Byzantine empires. In the colonial times, Western democracies prevailed over most of the Asian and African countries that were all ruled despots. More recently, democratic Britain and the U.S.A. won against Nazi Germany ruled by one man. India, with a stable democratic system, has defeated and dismembered Pakistan which has mostly been ruled by military dictators. Democratic Britain defeated military-ruled Argentina in the Falklands, despite the fact that Britain was many times further away from the battlefield than Argentina. Revolutionary Iran, governed by a popular leadership and an elected majlis, won extraordinary victories over Iraq's despotic ruler, Saddam Hussain. And, of course, democratic Israel has been inflicting for the past many decades humiliating defeats on the richer and more populous Arab countries ruled by dictators and kings. One could continue the list, but the examples cited should be enough to teach us that if Muslim societies are to become strong, independent and prosperous societies, then their people will have to dispose of the ruling dictators and kings and take control of their affairs in their own hands. If they do not do so, then further disintegration of the Ummah and more and more humiliation and defeats from our enemies are inevitable. God has placed the future of the Muslim Ummah in the hands of its peoples.
peace
Last edited by جوري; 06-22-2008 at 01:01 AM.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks