Anger has spread throughout the land. An anger that's insinuated it's way into the collective consciousness of an alarming number of people who've been quick to find fault in a system that will allow what they perceive to be a murderer to walk free.
They place blame on the twelve who reached a decision in what can only be described as an unenviable task assigned to them. These twelve men and women are finding themselves ostracized and even threatened for the verdict they reached based on the evidence and testimony presented in court.
Jury duty is, to many, a quite distasteful job which they shy away from and use any means at their disposal to avoid, much as one avoids the bubonic plague. It seems, however that those who shun this civic responsibility are the ones who are quick to criticize those who do serve and condemn them when the decision they reach does not meet with the approval.
Many are called but few serve simply because trial lawyers have created a system of selection called Voir(e) Dire, which they state means "to tell the truth". This procedure allows lawyers on both sides to eliminate any who may adversely affect their planned prosecution or defense. However, there is a small point of semantics that I've always taken issue with the French Term Voir Dire properly transliterated in the common vernacular simply means "I understand what you're saying". The problem, as I see it, is that most attorneys at law do not understand what people are saying; mainly because it's entirely too simple for them to understand.
But, I digress. The main topic is the procedure and rules that all juries have to operate under in order to arrive at a decision. After being selected and approved each juror must take an oath prescribed by each jurisdiction Once that oath is administered the trial begins.
Once the trial is completed the judge then issues Instructions to the Jury in which he thorough explains the law pertaining to the case and charge the jury to decide the case upon it's merits based on evidence and testimony presented at trial and to disregard anything else, especially any emotion that would taint a decision.
Those who have never served can't even begin to fathom the full scope of the responsibility facing each juror. They cannot begin to realize the degree of integrity and impartial judgement that is required to decide what are and aren't valid facts in a case. Once they reach a decision it should not be questioned less chaos and violence reign
Many who are felt to be guilty by popular opinion and found innocent in a court of law are often ostracized and threatened but this is not proper in a civilized society. Rather it is best to remember that the guilty will flee when no one pursues them and in the end if they are indeed guilty they will soon self destruct and true justice will be served.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Tinstaffl Part IV - History and Moral Philosophy Part IV
Earlier I stated that a religion is essentially a philosophy and vice-versa. I refer again to the definition of religion; a belief, activity or cause pursued with fervor and devotion. I would call attention to the actions of the House of Representatives and Senate of late (2009 CE) and state that they have indeed pursued their belief(s) with fervor and devotion, refusing to hear the entreaties of those who voted for them. Who entrusted them with the authority to speak for them, an authority they have abused. Their actions are quite similar to some religious ceremonies with their hallelujahs and amens.
It can be easily demonstrated that crusading religions and revolutionary governments are essentially the same thought process, differing only in tag lines and creeds. Each relies on the ‘faithful’ and those willing to sacrifice their very lives to achieve an ideal. Even today the Democrats are being asked to sacrifice their seats in the next election to achieve a goal now. They will be the new martyrs for the cause and their recompense will be quite handsome indeed, thanks to perquisites and privileges they’ve given themselves without the consent or approbation of the people who elected them in good faith; a faith they have long abused
At the end of the Revolutionary War an attempt at creating a government under the Articles of Confederation was made but the central government was quite weak and had no authority to tax. In time it was declared ineffective so a new Constitutional Convention was called and that Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, is the one we work under today. The first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were added in 1791. They were patterned on the English Bill of Rights. They were reinforcement, a pledge that all pre-existing civil liberties and privileges would be guaranteed under the newly formed government. This was in response to the criticism of many that such guarantees had not been addressed in the body of the Constitution. It was the voice of the people that forced this change. For, in the end, it was not a revolution to form a drastically new form of government but one that was essentially familiar, but with a new rationality of authority.
When did this change? When did the voice of the people become subservient to the needs and requirements of the Party, be it Democrat or Republican? We can begin with the Civil War, “….testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” At the end of hostilities the supremacy of the federal government over the states was established and the will of the people was truncated just a trifle. During the Great Depression, Congress at the insistence of Franklin D Roosevelt, voted for sweeping changes, instituting agencies to bring aid and comfort to a demoralized population. One of those agencies was the Social Security Administration that established a monetary pool to supplement the retirements of those eligible. It meant the sacrifice of a bit of privacy, giving everyone a number and creating a database of every worker in the land. Those who were disaffected welcomed it and lauded its passage, not realizing its long term implications.
One of the changes that occurred during the war years was the Tax Payment Act of 1943. It compelled all employers to withhold taxes from each employee’s paycheck and submit it directly to the government – to gain funds to pay for the war effort. This was the opening of the floodgate, for now the government had access to every working individuals pay records. This made it easier for the IRS to track down those who were failing to pay their ‘fair share’. It was but another truncation of privacy and even liberty.
There was much controversy about the act and even though the Supreme Court declared many of Roosevelt’s created agencies unconstitutional it ruled the Social Security Act constitutional, but only after laws were passed that allowed the Roosevelt administration to pack the court with his own nominees. It was another victory for the central government that gave impetus for what was to come in the following decades under Democratic leadership.
Next I will discuss the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms.
It can be easily demonstrated that crusading religions and revolutionary governments are essentially the same thought process, differing only in tag lines and creeds. Each relies on the ‘faithful’ and those willing to sacrifice their very lives to achieve an ideal. Even today the Democrats are being asked to sacrifice their seats in the next election to achieve a goal now. They will be the new martyrs for the cause and their recompense will be quite handsome indeed, thanks to perquisites and privileges they’ve given themselves without the consent or approbation of the people who elected them in good faith; a faith they have long abused
At the end of the Revolutionary War an attempt at creating a government under the Articles of Confederation was made but the central government was quite weak and had no authority to tax. In time it was declared ineffective so a new Constitutional Convention was called and that Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, is the one we work under today. The first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were added in 1791. They were patterned on the English Bill of Rights. They were reinforcement, a pledge that all pre-existing civil liberties and privileges would be guaranteed under the newly formed government. This was in response to the criticism of many that such guarantees had not been addressed in the body of the Constitution. It was the voice of the people that forced this change. For, in the end, it was not a revolution to form a drastically new form of government but one that was essentially familiar, but with a new rationality of authority.
When did this change? When did the voice of the people become subservient to the needs and requirements of the Party, be it Democrat or Republican? We can begin with the Civil War, “….testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” At the end of hostilities the supremacy of the federal government over the states was established and the will of the people was truncated just a trifle. During the Great Depression, Congress at the insistence of Franklin D Roosevelt, voted for sweeping changes, instituting agencies to bring aid and comfort to a demoralized population. One of those agencies was the Social Security Administration that established a monetary pool to supplement the retirements of those eligible. It meant the sacrifice of a bit of privacy, giving everyone a number and creating a database of every worker in the land. Those who were disaffected welcomed it and lauded its passage, not realizing its long term implications.
One of the changes that occurred during the war years was the Tax Payment Act of 1943. It compelled all employers to withhold taxes from each employee’s paycheck and submit it directly to the government – to gain funds to pay for the war effort. This was the opening of the floodgate, for now the government had access to every working individuals pay records. This made it easier for the IRS to track down those who were failing to pay their ‘fair share’. It was but another truncation of privacy and even liberty.
There was much controversy about the act and even though the Supreme Court declared many of Roosevelt’s created agencies unconstitutional it ruled the Social Security Act constitutional, but only after laws were passed that allowed the Roosevelt administration to pack the court with his own nominees. It was another victory for the central government that gave impetus for what was to come in the following decades under Democratic leadership.
Next I will discuss the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)