(Non-Partisan) Should voting be compulsory for registered US citizens?

[Monocrom]

Umm, so if your freedom was at stake, would you want the chronically unemployed deciding your fate?

Here's the thing, it's no better now.
You're supposed to get a jury of your peers.
But that only applies to financial class.
A gun-owner who was forced to shoot in self-defense,
NEVER gets a jury of his peers. For example, other gun-owners.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

Here's the thing, it's no better now.
You're supposed to get a jury of your peers.
But that only applies to financial class.
A gun-owner who was forced to shoot in self-defense,
NEVER gets a jury of his peers. For example, other gun-owners.

So is that a "YES"?

 

[Monocrom]

That's a, my idea is better than what currently exists.

 

[jtr1962]

As far a jury duty goes.... I'd like to vote that everyone who can prove they have a job should be excused from it.

That includes anyone who's self-employed. Arguably, if you're a sole proprietor then serving is even more disruptive, as there are no coworkers to pick up the slack while you're gone.

Let's address the elephant in the room, people in America are ridiculously sue-happy.

That's why I say no more jury trials in civil suits. That one thing alone would probably reduce the need for jurors by 90%.

But, if you're unemployed and collecting State Aid, you have plenty of time to serve. And I mean actually serve. Not show up for 3-5 days, sit around, and wonder if you'll be selected for a jury. No, you get automatically picked! Then lawyers on both sides decide whether or not to keep you. If they don't, you get randomly assigned to another jury. After 5 rejections, you get to go home. Done! Might take a couple of days at most, plus you get paid extra for participating.

Good idea. At least you'll have to do something civic in return for help. Plus it's not like this is back-breaking work. The hardest part is getting there. After that, you're sitting on your behind all day.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

That's a, my idea is better than what currently exists.

No, I don't think so.

My family has been highly impacted this year with jury duty, very much inconvenienced. Fortunately, none of them had to actually serve, but they did have to show up. One family member even had to travel 60 miles to federal court and stay overnight in a motel. As inconvenienced as they were I am glad that we have the legal system that we have--it could be a lot worse. No, it isn't perfect, but the fact that my family members who I trust, and are good people, were called for jury duty, gives me some confidence that a jury of good people is possible, at least in my area. I can't speak for your area or any other, but I have a bit more hope for the system since my family members were called. I have served in the past, and it was a pain, but better to be one of the twelve than the accused.

 

[Monocrom]

Unfortunately good people can be easily manipulated by slick, experienced lawyers. It's the ones who are jaded who can't be tricked or fooled so easily.

 

[Poppy]

Unfortunately good people can be easily manipulated by slick, experienced lawyers. It's the ones who are jaded who can't be tricked or fooled so easily.

WOW!!! Talking about being negative and opinionated.
Makes me want to puke.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

Unfortunately good people can be easily manipulated by slick, experienced lawyers. It's the ones who are jaded who can't be tricked or fooled so easily.

With twelve people, you get a mix--likely a few jaded folks along with the less-jaded. Having that many points of view in the deliberations helps to mitigate the extremes.

Time consuming, somewhat clunky, inconvenient, but the best system I believe in existence. If there is a better system, I am unaware of it.

 

[bykfixer]

I was waiting in a jury pool the day Hunter was indicted. Half the room said "the wrong man is going to jail". They had CNN going in the room we were in.
Now I was kinda nervous before the trial to ask who they thought should be. We went to the court room where the judge dismissed us because the defendent was a no show.

In the parking lot I asked folks who they thought should be in jail instead of Hunter. The answers were surprising. A little old lady said "Joe". A bearded guy in an NRA shirt said "Trump". One said Obama, two said "Bush" and another said "the sorry sob that drew my name for jury duty again". lol

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

I was waiting in a jury pool the day Hunter was indicted. Half the room said "the wrong man is going to jail". They had CNN going in the room we were in.
Now I was kinda nervous before the trial to ask who they thought should be. We went to the court room where the judge dismissed us because the defendent was a no show.

In the parking lot I asked folks who they thought should be in jail instead of Hunter. The answers were surprising. A little old lady said "Joe". A bearded guy in an NRA shirt said "Trump". One said Obama, two said "Bush" and another said "the sorry sob that drew my name for jury duty again". lol

My local radio station has kind of a news page online. They post the mugshots of the arrested, along with a brief description of the charges. A LOT of the arrests are for failure to appear (in court).

I'm thinking maybe if the bail was set higher, fewer people would bail out and then fail to appear, and not waste the court's time and the juror's time. But then again, their failure to appear gets jurors off the hook, so..."win some, lose some." It does seem kind of stupid to let these people out on bail that likely won't show back for trial on their own. Overburdens LE having to pick them up again, or bondsmen having to find them and haul them back again, and wastes court time. But then again, if it was me, I would want to bail out. *sigh* Criminal justice is hard.