Would you lie during voir dire, to get onto a jury?

quote:

---

Now why on earth would ANYONE answer this?

---

Because they have balls and the strength of their conviction? This place is anonymous.

I would not lie. No matter how much I wished for a particular outcome in the case.

Jury nullification and lying during voir dire are both daggers through the heart of the jury system.

Look, I do not expect an answer from YOU. You have demonstrated that you will not engage in good faith discussions of interesting topics. It is what it is.

quote:

---

Jury nullification is a valid tool to right wrongs,

---

It does not surprise me in the slightest that you hold this view.

The role of a jury in our system is to apply the law to the facts, NOT to engage in some subjective, rogue search for an idea of "justice" in the eyes of those 12 people.

quote:

---

Look, I do not expect an answer from YOU. You have demonstrated that you will not engage in good faith discussions of interesting topics. It is what it is.

---

You're asking people to go on record in a hypothetical about breaking the law and committing perjury.

people lie to get out....

quote:

---

Hank

---

Alters talking to alters now. Geesh.

quote:

---

The role of a jury in our system is to apply the law to the facts, NOT to engage in some subjective, rogue search for an idea of "justice" in the eyes of those 12 people.

---

Like they did in the OJ case, right?

quote:

---

Would you be willing to lie during voir dire, in an attempt to get a place on that jury?

---

Hey Dumbass, most people lie to get OUT of being on a jury!

quote:

---

The role of a jury in our system is to apply the law to the facts, NOT to engage in some subjective, rogue search for an idea of "justice" in the eyes of those 12 people.

quote:

---

Like they did in the OJ case, right?

---

---

That is indeed a pretty good example of jury nullification ... and why it is a BAD thing.

A jury applying the law would have convicted him, yet that jury ignored the law and implemented THEIR idea of "justice."

Did we like THAT result?

Were their actions a valid "protection against unjust laws and government overreach?"

I suspect that a fair number of posters, if honest, support jury nullification when the result fosters THEIR idea of "justice," but oppose it when it fosters someone ELSE's idea of "justice." And they see no inherent contradiction in those positions, because (of course) THEIR notions of "justice" are always objectively correct.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now why on earth would ANYONE answer this?

---

I asked the OP basically this in the thread he's spinning this one from .... and he ignored it.

---

Scrooster, "WTF?" was not much of a contribution, and I thought the question interesting enough to start a thread, rather than derailing the other one.