Discussion: Excuses to get out of Jury Duty? - Page 4

iHype.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan

I'm talking about likelihood. 1% is not as good as 0.001% because "it still can happen". A medication which has a 30% chance of being addictive is not just as good as a medication which chances of side effects are much lower. And that is the point I'm making.

An educated judge will always be less biased than 12 random people, especially in complicated cases. If you refuse to acknowledge this then I hope you won't be unfairly sentenced by a bunch of uneducated people.

I never said that the chances of a judge being bias / making wrong judgement was more than a jury. I simply said both can make the wrong decision.

Quote:

An educated judge will always be less biased

Lol this is definitely you making an assumption that also is indeed, not always true.

But do you.

Jan

Quote:

Originally posted by iHype.

I never said that the chances of a judge being bias / making wrong judgement was more than a jury. I simply said both can make the wrong decision.

Lol this is definitely you making an assumption that also is indeed, not always true.

But do you.

That was an attack on your claim that both systems are "equally bad" or "equally good" and now you're either trying to run away from it or pretend not to see how I dragged it down.

And if you need support to what I said in the second statement you cited, go back and read all of my posts in the thread.

And I'm waiting for your contrarguments. Prove to me that 12 random people are as good in judgement as an educated judge.

iHype.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan

That was an attack on your claim that both systems are "equally bad" or "equally good"

Okay, but I said this where?...

I said both systems can go wrong, as you were saying 'a jury full of people can all be hide their bias. Whereas with a judge that'd never happen' (you LITERALLY said this).

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan

A lot of countries don't use this system. To me, as a person who comes from a country where the verdict is the decision of a judge who is a highly qualified lawyer, unremovable from his post and unbiased, this system is very odd to say the least.

It wasn't saying a jury case was better. It was saying there is no system with full accuracy, and a judge case has faults too.

Quote:

And I'm waiting for your contrarguments. Prove to me that 12 random people are as good in judgement as an educated judge.

You said 'an educated judge will always be less biased than a jury'.

Unless you can show me proof of every case in history and prove that every single judge wasn't bias, then this is a lie.

Judges have been biased, and unlike what you're saying this is literally proven. Out of the millions of jury cases, there has been atleast ONE where the full jury was unbiased. You're literally delusional if you say that's not true.

So no, a judge will not always be less biased.

Style.

Quote:

Originally posted by Buddy

Yes I was on the OJ Simpson trial

was pretty boring, I didn't pay attention at all

Jan

Quote:

Originally posted by iHype.

Okay, but I said this where?...

I said both systems can go wrong, as you were saying 'a jury full of people can all be hide their bias. Whereas with a judge that'd never happen' (you LITERALLY said this).

Both system go wrong = both systems are equally flawed = both systems are equally good/bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by iHype.

It wasn't saying a jury case was better. It was saying there is no system with full accuracy, and a judge case has faults too.

By using this word I mean a system clause which I explained earlier. By law, the judge cannot rule in cases where there is a possibility of personal involvement. Moreover, there is a possibility of swapping the judge if there is proof of bias.

Obviously both systems are flawed. And I said this a million times already. My point is, the system I'm talking about is less flawed than the US system. And you keep pushing this back to "both systems are flawed" (see my response to the first quotation).

Quote:

Originally posted by iHype.

You said 'an educated judge will always be less biased than a jury'.

Unless you can show me proof of every case in history and prove that every single judge wasn't bias, then this is a lie.

Judges have been biased, and unlike what you're saying this is literally proven. Out of the millions of jury cases, there has been atleast ONE where the full jury was unbiased. You're literally delusional if you say that's not true.

So no, a judge will not always be less biased.

The bolded statement is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Xtinafan 99

I had to go once and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. We could use the internet, watch tv and had a cafeteria in the building while we waited.

I didn't get chosen for the jury because I had the school excuse, I went to college far from home and school started before the trial took place.

Ichinaru19

Quote:

Originally posted by jonasha

No habla ingles, me gusta penis

Mucho clever

Hollywood.

Here in Canada, the only way to get out of jury duty is if you had a pre-planned vacation, or conflicts in your schedule. Otherwise, you had to show up for jury selection. If you didn't they put out a warrant for your arrest.

JonginBey

Aside from doctor excuses, I don't know. I had jury duty two years ago. Sat in the auditorium-like room for about 2-3 hours, went on a lunch break, came back and sat in there for another 2 hours only to find out I (as well as everyone else that showed up that day) wasn't needed. I was relieved, but bitch

Elusive Chanteuse

tell them ur racist