Thursday, June 25, 2009


Lie detector machines have some usefulness and validation. Yet, their results are excluded from testimony. The idea that a group of annoyed strangers can detect the truth by using their gut feelings or can settle disputes in advanced technical fields is a psychotic delusion of the lawyer. The lawyer has excluded any with knowledge, making matters worse.

In the Middle Ages, the jurors had good knowledge of the case. They had walked the disputed property line 10 years before. They knew the criminal since childhood. Together they contributed the wisdom of the crowd. The lawyer has perverted these advantages grasped 1000 year ago, and excludes those with knowledge and even those married to those with knowledge. There is no point to having a jury, if only ignoramuses are allowed by the biased lawyer on the bench.

The sole valid jury vote is the secret first vote. It should be the only one allowed. After that, the jury vote reflects the opinion of the biggest loud mouth. The rest of the jurors only want to go home, will go along with any decision that will end their ordeal. If there is a lawyer on the jury, he can reverse the majority vote in the direction of his biased opinion. Under such circumstances, the legislature could set a high threshold of a super majority of the jury for guilty verdict, e.g. 9 of 12.

The jurors should be compensated at their standard salary rate, and there should be no one excused, not even the President of the United States. This is a version of dragooning. The theft of their services is a regulatory taking violating the Fifth Amendment, and I do not care what case law says. The case law was set by judges dependent on free jury services. Their conflict of interest makes all their appellate decisions unlawful and corrupt. Someone asked about compensating a housewife. Employment discrimination laws cover that scenario. What salary would be required to replace her services for her 8 hour workday of a juror? I think you could find someone to do child care, cook, shop, clean, for around $10 an hour, times 8 hours (time on jury duty for a day), so about $80 a day. As to breast feeding, no employment laws cover that. Some employers allow it at work, and it is not disruptive. Others do not. Some of the issues are here. It is not settled in the workplace, so it is not settled in the court. If allowing babies at work replaces maternity leave, it is quite advantageous to the employer.

The defense should be permitted to tell the truth. But for the plaintiff complaint, their lives would not have been interrupted.

Who are the peers in "a jury of one's peers?" One's peers are one's fellow citizens in town. So, random assignments to cases would be the fairest. That would end the churning cases, and appeals on discriminatory juries. It would end voir dire, the questioning of juries. The latter has never been proven effective for the lawyers. They just add hours and days to their billed time.

No comments: