pretty much.It's no wonder we get fucked up jury decisions. The role of the jury is to weigh evidence and determine credibility of witnesses. That sounds like a task I want to charge to people who aren't experts that are selected on inability to come up with clever ways to avoid jury duty. Who better to do that than the unemployed and the elderly?
On top of that we pay these people next to nothing and make it mandatory. Nobody works harder than slaves.
You linked me to a Taurus?
From what I hear, you'd have better luck throwing it at someone.
In the ghetto, it's shiney and cheap. Do you think anything else matters?
I think my local Wal-Mart has .380ACP. Walther PPKs are pretty popular around here. Of course those are .355 in diameter and significantly lighter than 9mm or .38SPC.Ammo ain't cheap, or easy to find
20 years ago? No idea, but I don't think they were all that common then either.
BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 211 U.S. 452 (1908) This one? The reason for the 13th amendment in that was "it is said practically to make a crime out of a mere departure from service." That is, one couldn't be held criminally liable (in the sense of fraud) for taking money for work not already performed. I don't know which libertarian website you pulled it off but they were skipping on reasoning.Bailey v. Alabama opinion disagrees with this. Guarantee a trial by jury? I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is penalty for not performing on a jury being punishable with imprisonment. There is no other way to look at this. That is forced labor. Jurors are not convicted of crimes. They should give up no rights.
BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 211 U.S. 452 (1908) This one? The reason for the 13th amendment in that was "it is said practically to make a crime out of a mere departure from service." That is, one couldn't be held criminally liable (in the sense of fraud) for taking money for work not already performed. I don't know which libertarian website you pulled it off but they were skipping on reasoning.
Right to trial by jury is important. The courts must be able to provide a speedy trial by jury, and in recognition of that they are granted powers by congress to make it possible. They are also granted a whole host of other powers as well but beside the point. If they weren't they wouldn't be able to carry out their constitutional duty.
It's the same reason the IRS has the power to collect income tax by any means necessary including seizing your assets, they have a specific grant of power by congress to collect taxes because congress has a grant of power to levy taxes.
They could up the amount of money they pay to juries, to make it more attractive, but it would cost more and no one wants to pay taxes. You could radically change how trials are carried out, like in equity court by panels of judges, but no one wants to pay for more judges.
Not arguing it's the best system, it is just the least worst way. The BEST way to avoid all this trouble is don't get arrested, and have a good reason for not serving on a jury. Anyone who has ever been affiliated with the legal system (including volunteers) are usually the first excused from jury duty HINT HINT.
do you not agree there are doubts that have been cast upon the evidence in this case? I'm debating above the belt but you and duke have gone for the "oh, he works for cnn" bullshit to bolster an argument, as if that means anything here. I don't work for the news and in that regard that makes none of us 3 any different. lame tactics.
I read 7 out of 9 recanted online while reading up on this. do you think I would just pull that out of thin air? I also see it says there were 34 witnesses elsewhere since you came in here to be a passive aggressive douche.