I had jury duty recently, and as I predicted, I was not selected for the jury because of my political views. I was deemed unfit for jury duty because of my political views, meaning that not only am I not allowed to be represented in the government because I'm a minority, but I am not allowed to serve on a jury, either.

Voir Dire is a process by which the jury is selected, and it literally means "to tell the truth." And I told the truth.


At the end of Voir Dire, we were given a list of about 15 questions for which we were supposed to see the judge if we answered yes to any of them (which about 2/3rds of the people did). Here are my answers (delivered concisely and precisely as I had been given hours to prepare my answers while other people ahead of me gave their answers): (keep in mind, I had taken an oath to tell the truth, and that even without oaths, I am an honest person).

Yes, I have used Marijuana. I used it about 10 times or so during college, and it has been over 5 years since I have used Marijuana.
Yes, I do have an opinion on the laws regarding possession and distribution of Marijuana, I believe that they should all be repealed.
Yes, I am a member of a group that advocates a change in marijuana policy: I am a member of the Libertarian Party and part of their platform is the legalization of Marijuana.
Yes, I have a strong opinion on some of the law enforcement agencies involved: I believe that the DEA should be disbanded.
Yes, I have a strong opinion on many federal criminal laws: I believe many of them to be unconstitutional. I do not yet have an opinion on the laws that these defendants are being charged under and I will make an unbiased judgment on their constitutionality. I have no reservations about enforcing a constitutional law that I find distasteful; those need to be repealed by the legislature rather than nullified by a jury. Even if by rendering a guilty verdict I am perpetrating an injustice, I will render a guilty verdict if not doing so would violate my oaths as a juror.
Yes, I have strong opinions on the federal justice system. Both due to the anarchist writings that influence my political views, and because I am a devout Christian, I recognize that our justice system is a system which is severely flawed and has committed many injustices. But as a devout Christian, I take my oath as a juror seriously, just as I take my oath to be honest during voir dire selection seriously. I will do as the law requires me to do.

That judge probably didn't realize that I was possibly the most honest person ever in his courtroom. And because he was too much of a bigot to consider the possibility that I was being honest, he decided I was unfit to be a judge. Or because he needed mindless sheep to populate his jury, rather than someone with critical thinking skills.

rockman you are truly a legend.

Rockman is awesome sauce!

Wow.

A devout Christian Libertarian? Do you find many conflicting ideologies? (no troll)

I am an admirer of Gary Johnson.

Messed up story, btw.

Christianity and Libertaranism are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe they mesh perfectly. I'm often baffled by the animosity displayed by some Libertarians towards Christians, especially some of Ron Paul's fans, who I believe cost him a lot of support with their anti-religious bigotry.

In my opinion, Libertarians hold more steadfastly to the principles of our founding than any other current political ideology.. some even more steadfastly than many of the founders themselves. While not all of the founders were Christian, many were. They all believed that freedom was the "natural state of man", and the Christans among them believed that natural state was the way God intended us to live. Hence references to Nature's Law and Nature's God.

Jesus taught us to be moral, but He did not teach us to force morality on others. That is a perversion of His teachings, brought to us by His imperfect followers. (I'm not claiming to be perfect with that comment by the way. As humans, we are all imperfect)

Jesus did not condemn the sinners. He dined with them. He admonished us to give to others of our own free will, not to force others via government to be charitable.

And most importantly, He never taught that others should be forced to believe in Him or God. Christian salvation comes from what is in one's heart, and can never be forced on someone.

I see nothing in Jesus' teachings that contradicts Libertarian philosophy.

SAM

As a Christian, one of my favorite things about Gary Johnson is that he's an atheist. Yes, we Libertarians are enigmas wrapped in puzzles. :D

No, I do not find too many conflicts.

I am more accurately a libertarian socialist, rather than a libertarian. I'm not quite an anarchist, though.

I do find conflicts between capitalism and Christianity. That's why I am a socialist.

Were you excused by the judge, or by one of the attorneys?

I have had some experience with the jury system (through my job) and it doesn't surprise me that you were excused. I hope that they were polite about it.

I <3 Rockman - and Rockman <3 me :)

I was excused by the judge, and the reason was given that he deemed me unable to render an unbiased decision. Either due to my belief that jury nullification is acceptable only with unconstitutional laws, and not merely laws I find distasteful. Or because he believed me to be lying under oath.

Claiming the right to consult the constitution during deliberations should not result in me being disqualified from service on a jury. If anything, it should make me more qualified to serve on a jury (unless the government is being naughty).

The alternative is that he believed that I was lying despite my oath to tell the truth, and either did not believe it possible that my answers could be truthful, or did not believe that a libertarian socialist could be truthful about what principles their actions would be guided by while serving on a jury. Both of those are wholly unacceptable as well.

Been quite a few years for me for jury selection, but doesn't the prosecution and defense select and release potential jurors? Judge releases for special cases? Like "my baby is critical condition I can't be here kind of deal

Heh the fact that you mentioned anarchist writings is probably enough to have you tossed I'd guess....

I think you're reading far too much into this, Rockman.

My understanding is that libertarianism and anarchism (political movement) are somewhat different even if they have a fair amount of common ground.
Anarchism is about being against the concentration of power weather it be individual or organization, governmental, or not. Libertarianism is more about lack of governmental influence/interference in ones lives and probably not against some concentration of individual power/influence (this does not imply fascism in any sense of the political ideology)

Although I've never been selected for jury duty, I've heard of far more frivolous reasons why people have been dismissed. A buddy of mine decided not to dress formally (when in jeans and a t-shirt) and was dismissed given that everyone else was more dressed up.

I think you were tossed for having a couple runon sentences. The judge was probably a grammar-nazi.

How about the possibility all the other people answered more Yes's?

Why would the judge read past #2? Who wants a potential mind altering drug user on their jury? Anarchist or not, who's to know what drug he was on in the courtroom?

potential mind altering drug user?

What have you been smoking? Clearly not marijuana.

There is no question that marijuana does alter the user's perception and thinking process. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point to using it.

That being said though, disqualifying someone from jury duty for being honest enough to admit that they tried it in college would be pretty stupid... unless they're also going to start asking potential jurors whether they've ever consumed alcohol.

Clearly, you are on it right now.

"There is no question that marijuana does alter the user's perception and thinking process. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point to using it."

Any food or drink (or interaction with your preferred gender to interact with sexually) will do that as well although it's a question of degree. Consuming food/drink/poison causes your body chemistry to change, it's part of the cycle of life.

Did you know that sex results in the exchange of substances that alter your brain chemistry as well (beyond getting pregnant and immediate feelings afterwards).

I think what H4 is arguing is that marijuana doesn't impact your perception/thinking process *adversely*.

++martian
supplier of useless fact

YES, I WAS AWARE OF THAT. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER] IS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ALLOWING JURY MEMBERS TO HAVE SEX IN THE COURT ROOM.

HA!

SAM

EDIT: I OVERSIMPLIFIED ABOVE. WE ARE OPPOSED TO JURORS HAVING SEX IN THE COURTROOM DURING PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE VEHEMENTLY IN FAVOR OF SEX IN THE COURT ROOM DURING OFF HOURS.

A couple years ago, I was on a grand jury for 5 months. Nearly 1/3 of the total cases were drug possession.

They need people in jail to justify the salaries and pensions of the police+jail wardens. If you decriminalize mary jane, it's not because cops don't care about "personal liberties" so much -- it's because the decriminalization would result in about 1/4 of the police force being tossed because the arrest counts would be far too low to justify their salary+bennies+pension.

Libertarians really shouldn't focus on the constitutionality -- nobody gives a rip about the constitution when money's involved.

Lawyers and judges don't want critical thinkers. They don't want people looking at what's presented, analyzing and judging it, interpreting it based on their own experiences, and then passing judgment on it. They want people who look at the evidence and react to it without considering anything else.

No, they just don't want people that are only thinking about their next hit of the bong. Isn't it funny how someone high on ganja considers themselves, critical thinkers, LMFAO. Critical thinking, you won't find that next to dope in any dictionary.

Rockman, I agree with you, but I think you are just slightly missing the point of not getting selected. In the end, perhaps the judge was attacking your honesty, but the real thing is "conflict of interest". Would it be fair to select a judge to rule on a marijuana case if he had the same answers as you? No of course not.

It's the same thing in the field of journalism - not that Fox is credible anyway, but it's recently come to light that four of their commentators are paid staff of Mitt Romney. That is a conflict of interest - in any other news organization, they'd get fired on the spot. Joshua Trevino was also fired from The Guardian due to a conflict of interest.

I understand EXACTLY what you are saying though, but I feel you should try to understand the reasoning why you weren't selected a bit more.

The prosecutor obviously wants God faring people who hate drugs.
The defense would want drug users as sympathizers..
If you were dismissed by the judge directly it's because he saw you as completely biased which means no matter the case, you conclusion has already been formed.

its not quite easy to find ppl who hasn't smoked marihuana.

What a dog and pony show you performed to get out of jury duty!

Let me start by saying, nothing in your post has given me any reason to take back my consistent dislike for you.

Moving on.

I am going with he didn't want such a pompous ass on his jury. I was truly unaware of your doctorate in law. Where did you take your bar? I am sure it is a very prestigious school....The fact that you imply to know more about our laws than a legislation before you, TRULY amazes me. For being such a devout Christian, you really have no clue about what it means to be humble.

So go ahead....continue to walk on water, buddy. Keep your eye on that ego of yours, make sure you don't falter....no one is going to be there to grab your hand when you go under.

http://reason.com/...ury-acquits-pot-growing-r

What Zen said. Much better than my theory on all this.

LMFAO!!!!!! +100

I have always believed that the US should have professional jurors. This just makes me feel even stronger that way.

A legend? To what? Of what? To whom?

He's a pot-smoking, "anarchist Christian" with an ego so massive, it meets itself around corners. And he's insinuating that the judge that booted him is "too much of a bigot" to consider Rockman's honesty, and yet wonders why he was not selected to be on a jury?

Going on his first post, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a courthouse (or any other government building), let alone in front of a judge in a jury-selection process.

guilty people deserve it.

lol

we need to renew the AT awards, this thread would be a sure fire nominee

You fools missed his point. He was saying that he could have lied in order to forward his political goals and be jury on something he felt strongly about. The law can't read your mind. He could have easily lied and got appointed to that jury despite his political views.

Instead, he chose to be honest, showing a great amount of integrity which many jurors don't show. Apple vs Samsung is a case in point.

Although I would have rejected Rockman for different reasons, what yall are saying is just retarded. Either think critically about this or keep your trap shut.

TAN - The fact that he replied honestly isn't what is in question here. His answers to the questions and his need to state "That judge probably didn't realize that I was possibly the most honest person ever in his courtroom" is what is getting large rocks thrown at him.

So maybe YOU should start critically thinking or else the point is lost on YOU. I don't give people kudos for telling the truth or doing decent human being type acts.

I thought us Americans were the only ones to applaud mediocrity.

No, you probably weren't. Lots of people surely told courts about all of their problems, making them unfit for jury duty, just so that they could go about their own lives.

In the best of worlds (or atleast if the judge could choose jurors all by herself) the members of a jury should consist of an average of the population in the jurisdiction in which the court is held. Sorry, my English isn't the best, but I'm sure you know what I mean. And, given your answers, and depending on the reason of the trial, I'm not much surprised you weren't selected. You're maybe a minority, in the same way an outspoken Al-Qaudia member would be in your community. Maybe sad, but true. In a jury of 250 you both could be members, but not how it funtions now.

But what the fluff do I know, I'm from Sweden, the home of modern social liberalism.

"your honor, i am not capable of providing a non-biased judgement in this case." probably would've sufficed.

are you okay with having someone that smokes tobacco or drinks coffee on your jury? i won't even get started with legal prescriptions.

when i saw the thread title the first thing that i thought of was tia carrere.