Extensions to Counterabuse Rights
What extensions, updates, clarifications and expansions to the right to bear arms and form a militia, the freedom from unlawful search and seizure of private property, the freedom from tampering and interception of communications and parcels, the right to a fair trial by a jury of (real) peers.
Should we update, clarify and empower juror powers and authority? Should we mandate that the bailiff read the jury their rights, powers and authority to override the judge?
Should we update the juror selection process to include online communities and limitations to similar age groups, subcultural common ground, and actual, true peerage?
Should we clarify that the right to a trial by jury of peers means actual peers, in terms of age, social affiliation, and principles and values?
Poll Created Thu 25 Apr 2013 4:00AM
Make the Right of a Fair Trial by a Jury of Peers Include Real Peers Closed Tue 30 Apr 2013 4:21AM
Premature. Discussion failed.
We should ratify a constitutional amendment that extends and expands the right to a fair trial by a jury of peers to specify real, true peers, in terms of education, social affiliation, general age group, values and principles, rather than being a farce.
Peers should be specifically identified to include online communities, clubs and charities, coworkers and classmates, and members of subcultures you participate in.
Jurors should be read a list of their rights, powers and authority to override the judge and decide guilt or lack of guilt and the sentence within the bounds of the law, and given a brief reminder of their role as a check and balance against abuses of law enforcement authority.
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
|Undecided||0%||9||JO JY N SS GJ LN|
5 of 14 people have voted (35%)
Alex M (Coyo)
Thu 25 Apr 2013 4:01AM
Abuses of Law Enforcement authority should be sharply curbed by giving a stronger right to a fair trial by jury of actual real peers. Jurors should be reminded of their role as a check and balance against the abuses of power by law enforcement.
Fri 26 Apr 2013 3:07AM
The jury is selected at random from the community to keep bias out of the equation. If you are too selective you could end up with the deck stacked for a criminals side.
Fri 26 Apr 2013 3:04PM
I think right now if you control it by demographic instead of getting random strangers you will actually remove a lot of bias. I also, pie in the sky, would wish that we could allow for anonymity of the defendant and perpetrator.
Zacqary Adam Green
Mon 29 Apr 2013 9:28PM
This is a new idea that I don't think we've considered for very long, and it deserves more discussion before we take a straw poll on it.
Zacqary Adam Green Mon 29 Apr 2013 9:27PM
I remember hearing that defense attorneys aren't allowed to tell the jury what jury nullification is. The court certainly doesn't tell them.
Overall, we need to reassert what "the law" means. "The law" isn't some religious dogma we're supposed to adhere to, it's supposed to be a written record of society's common sense. The pirate code be more like guidelines, y'see.
Amanda Johnson Tue 30 Apr 2013 2:45PM
I agree with making the pirate code more like guidelines. one of the biggest beefs that I have with the courts is how they speedily read the rights and obligations of the jury in legalease. A lot of jurors have no idea what they are expected to do.
Zacqary Adam Green Tue 30 Apr 2013 11:20PM
A cursory Google search for "jury nullification advocacy group" revealed http://fija.org/
kbenjamin sauerhaft coplon · Fri 26 Apr 2013 6:48PM
AJ what bias? it's random