Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
Yay for ends justifying means. In order to combat what you believe to be an incorrect policy and judicial system, you commit perjury to get yourself on a jury when the attorneys may want to exclude you. Do you also do outside research when you're on a jury to see all of the evidence as opposed to the evidence that jurors are allowed to access?
|
You may not be aware of this elusive fact, but asking for clarification for a question isn't exactly the same as perjury. I know. Crazy, right? What I'm actually doing (for those who care to read what I wrote) is preventing the lawyer from asking what amounts to an illegal question by purposefully being vague about it. I'm essentially saying "What you're actually asking is illegal". By asking for clarification, they either have to tell the truth and admit that their question was illegal or they have to change the question and thus make it something I can answer but that has nothing to do with me and the death penalty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
Important safety tip: You're a juror. You have a specific and prescribed role in the judicial system. If you want to do anything else, get a JD or get elected and stop mucking around with the process in furtherance of your own personal crusade. Obviously the result isn't as extreme, but from a legal perspective it's no different than vigilantism-you're eliminating the legal process and replacing it with your own beliefs.
|
I'm fixing the mess that lazy people who don't know shit about the process make by their ignorance. Shame on me!
BTW, "vigilantism"? If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that was actually perfectly legal. Google "jury nullification". The google "I don't know anything about the legal system".