To the People
You certainly did the right thing. There is no honor in lying.
I agree with MP. Not only is there no honor in lying, but there is of course risk in lying under oath.
You did the right thing. What would be great is if large numbers of people did what you did and courts suddenly could not find jurors for these cases.
There's no honor in throwing a 20-something man guilty of no real crime in prison for several years either. The court was no more entitled to an honest answer than a mugger inquiring which way his prospective victim had gone.
"What would be great is if large numbers of people did what you did and courts suddenly could not find jurors for these cases."
I'm in IT, and I do tech support for Judge's and their JA's (judicial assistants) in 5 different courthouses in a particular district. There's no way this would happen. On the door in one of the JA's rooms is a checklist showing 80 potential jurors needed per case. The goal is met all the time. There seems to be no shortage of people to choose from.
I attended the 2002 National NORML convention. There was a speech by a lawyer and he said that the answer is simple. If they ask you "Could you find someone guilty for a drug case?" You should of course answer "Yes". You are answering that you 'could', of course, you wouldn't - but you could"
You did the right thing. Honesty is never wrong and neither is upholding your personal integrity. Kudos to you.
Julian,
I can't accept that deceipt is a valid way of fighting the system for one who values their integrity. I would've done the exact same thing. I just hope that if I get on a jury that they aren't smart enough to ask me that question.
There is of course no honor in lying but in your position I probably would have answered differently. One of the things that keeps prohibition legal is that prosecutors will make damn sure that only fire breathing prohibitionists serve on juries. I've know a lot of cops as well as lawyers in my work and one thing I can tell you is that 99.9 percent of them have no problem lying to get a conviction. We have to get on the jury in order to practice jury nullification.
I think you definitely did the WRONG thing. People like you are the reason so many innocent people go to jail.
I am almost surprised that you were not found in contempt.
The job of a juror is to consider the merits of the case and whether or not the person has committed the act(s) in question. Finding that the person used/sold drugs is different from stating whether or not that person should be punished for it.
Saying that you could not judge the merits of the case and would not find against the person is similar to saying you would obstruct and/or rule in favor of the accused regardless of the facts.
Having said all this I too am in favor of legalization and would have done the same.
Well, I linked here from the agitator as this is something I've had to give thought to. I'm very popular in our Jury pool here, though so far I've never been given the opportunity to server on a drug case, only criminal cases, particularly aggravated assault.
These have been positive still though, as I've been able to prevail against emotional response for reason in two of them where the prosecution clearly did not meet their burden, and in one where it seemed very much like the state was trying to railroad a conviction.
That aside, I've had to give considerable thought to what I would say in regards to such questions. Frankly, I think you answered incorrectly. I strongly agree that you should not under any circumstances lie to the court. That does not help our cause, though I know others will disagree with me. I believe the rule of law is important. We do not subvert it to preserve it. At least, not today. There may come a day where we have no other choice, but today we do. And if we lie, we expose the defendant to a potential mistrial, which is not helpful.
That being said, consider what they asked you. You answered questions they did not ask. They wanted to know, will you be prejudiced for or against the client. My guess is, no, you wouldn't. Towards the law yes, towards the client no.
They wanted to know if you would judge fairly, according to the law. Given that jury nullification is fundamental principle of law, yes, you could. As a juror, you sit in judgement of not only the person on trial, but of the law he is charged with.
If you were willing to listen to all the facts of the case, and consider his guilt or innocence under the law, you should have answered no. It is immaterial if you would've then come to the end of the trial and considered the law and concluded that the law is wrong and voted not-guilty.
Consider this. If they had told you this guy had killed another man in self defense, and the prosecution was calling it murder under a law that banned the use of self-defense, would you then say you couldn't consider his case fairly?
Surely you would. You would establish the truth of his claims, his guilt or innocence under the law. You might then conclude that yes, he was defending himself, and yes, that was a violation of the law, but hte law is wrong and vote not-guilty. You still decided his guilt fairly according to the law.
This is no different. Don't let the way the state tries to frame the debate and deny you the ability to use your rights as a citizen and juror keep you from honestly carrying out your honor bound duty to the man on trial.
I have been called a few times for jury duty and once I made it as far as standing in front of the judge and being asked directly why I thought there was any reason I couldn't serve on the jury if selected. I had the pleasure (and honor?) of telling the judge directly that I couldn't honestly serve because I found so much at fault with the jury system and didn't believe that courts were really about justice and fairness.
I had these thoughts for some time before this encounter, but they certainly were encouraged by a bad court decision in a case during which I was a witness. It was not a drug case per se, but drugs were a factor and the way that jury decided on that case was a crime in itself.
Mark,
I agree. They ask a lot of "could you" questons. Could I convict? yes. Would I? no.
Mark,
That's a very sound line of reaonsing.
I totally agree with Mark, but if I was in the same situation without the hindsight that we are all using, I would have answered the same way. Next time, I think I will remember this when I go in for jury duty.
You were being thoughtful and considerate, which is admirable.
You also, however, did the wrong thing.
It is wrong for this person to be punished, even if he used or sold drugs.
You had the chance, possibly, to prevent this wrong.
To do so would have been morally right.
There is nothing inherently morally right about telling the truth. A moral question can only be answered by looking at whether the answer would lead to greater evil, suffering, and injustice or greater compassion, well-being, and fairness.
In this case, by telling a lie, you could have been able to reduce this person's injust suffering.
Asking whether something is true is not the same as asking whether it is right.
I don't think you did the "wrong" or "right" thing. Drug courts are morally bankrupt, and as such, ethics are of little consequence.
At the risk of sounding pessimistic (having been convicted of and sent to prison for a federal drug offense, it's hard to avoid pessimism), I don't think your decision would have made a significant impact either way. Don't let it keep you up at night– not any more than your disdain for current drug policy normally does.
I think what is more important is how YOU feel about what you did. Do you have lingering regrets? Learn from those feelings. Do you feel you made the right decision? Learn from that too.
If you are having lingering doubts in hindsight, I cordially welcome you to the experience of drug courts. "What if...?"
I think Julian makes an excellent point. There is no moral duty to be honest in all situations as his example of the mugger looking for his victim clearly demonstrates. Simple banalities such as “there is no honor in lying” may sound wise but they obscure the essential duty we have to weigh the moral consequences of our actions. There are times when the moral act is to lie. Whether this was one of those times can only be determined by one's moral philosophy. For me, the chance to spare someone from the horrors of imprisonment for something that shouldn't be a crime ranks much higher on my moral scale than the need for simple honesty. So while I have a lot of respect for Radley and the work he does on these issues, I think he made the wrong call on this. I would have lied and then voted not guilty.
I totally concur with Mark B. You answered the wrong answer because they asked the wrong question. You would have been fair to the process, in which both defendant and the statute itself were on trial. And your fairness to the process would have meant fairness to both sides.
Oops - slight correction 
I saw this link on The Agitator and assumed it was Radley Balko, but I see it was from Baylen Linnekin - sorry for the confusion. The last line should read in part "Baylen made the wrong call"
Oops - slight correction I saw this link on The Agitator and assumed it was Radley Balko, but I see it was from Baylen Linnekin - sorry for the confusion. The last line should read in part "Baylen made the wrong call"
I think if the question at hand was could you uphold the law as writen, you could have answered 'yes'.
If the question was will you uphold the law as writen, you should probably have said 'no'.
The idea that the jury is supreme is from English Common law. It is from The Magna Carta that even the King could not inforce unjust laws. The Jury would sort things and make a just ruling no matter what the law.
Joe Bob Briggs at joebobbriggs.com has a wonderful article, "Keep juries dumb", when writing for UPI, arguing that it is the duty of any juror to render a decision that is just, the law, not withstanding.
Just because a law says 10 years for an offense, is no reason a juror has to reach that decision. The juror is to render a just verdict, and you could, and should, serve each time called and do just that.
The idea that the jury is supreme is from English Common law. It is from The Magna Carta that even the King could not enforce unjust laws. The Jury would sort things and make a just ruling no matter what the law.
Joe Bob Briggs at joebobbriggs.com has a wonderful article, "Keep juries dumb", when writing for UPI, arguing that it is the duty of any juror to render a decision that is just, the law, not withstanding.
Just because a law says 10 years for an offense, is no reason a juror has to reach that decision. The juror is to render a just verdict, and you could, and should, serve each time called and do just that.
I made it to the final jury selection and actually got to sit in the jury box but two of us needed to get cut. My questionnaire had no questions about drug use, fyi. But, interestingly, the prosecutor singled me out to come up to the judge. Her one question: How would describe the name of your neighborhood? My answer, Chevy Chase, got me instantly booted.
Why?
This situation perplexes. Certianly, one could say, "If every potential juror with a particular ideology lied to get on juries, we would have little in the way of impartial justice." That is to say, in more sophisticated words, that justice becomes much more indeterminate if jurors with secret ideological stances are often found serving on juries. The measure of innocence or guilt would have less to do with evidence and/or lawyerly competence on both sides and more to do with the luck of the jury draw. Admittedly, there is a possibility that this already occurs more frequently than one would expect, as going on record saying, "I am a virulent racist and will convict any black defendant put in front of me," for example, is unwise and probably done without much frequency. However, the "luck" factor in criminal trials would increase greatly if potential jurors made it common practice to lie about their beliefs, and this is obviously an undesirable outcome.
On the other hand, there is the possibility and even the likelihood that Mr. Linnekin could have saved a young man from years of what is essentially state-sponsored torture (considering the condition of American prisons), this harsh punishment being meted out for a relatively minor violation of commerce laws. Mr. Linnekin's honesty was noble and I don't believe he can be faulted, particularly considering the (quite appropriately) significant penalty for perjury in the American justice system. However, intention and consequence do not always, indeed cannot always, coincide (take the Vietnam war for an example, if you must). So, though I would have probably done the same were I in Mr. Linnekin's shoes, I feel that the bravest among us would bite their tongues and go through with the deception.
It should be noted, of course, that if the evidence against the young man were truly strong, a hung jury would probably be the best that even a convincing and charismatic libertarian such as Mr. Linnekin could hope for, and the likelihood of his being "caught" would be quite high, due to the visibility of the blogosphere. Since a hung jury would probably result in another trial, the likely best course of action would be to get on the jury and plead for a lighter sentence. This feels like a cop-out to me, but, as I said before, good intentions with negative consequences are pretty much worthless overall.
If I have the ability to intervene to spare a man or woman from unjust confinement and probable torture and rape, I feel I have a duty to do so.
Perjury is an evil in so far as it prevents the courts from justly administering the law. When it is used to protect human rights in the face of inhumane law, it is a good.
I find ethical constructions that suggest it is virtuous for potential jurors who oppose prohibition laws to attempt to deceive the Court by offering deliberately misleading answers reached by mentally parsing the Court's phrasing in a different fashion than it was intended, but that it is morally wrong to attempt to deceive the court by affirmatively lying to be inane and pedantic.
I disapprove of theft and I disapprove of torture. I have no respect for the shiftless, unintrospective reprobate who announces, "I stole a can of coke; the corporation can afford the seventy-five cents." But I'm inclined to judge the thoughtful scholar who announces, "I let a man be tortured by a corrupt government, but at least i didn't lie," more harshly, however much I respect him or her.
If anyone knows of a case of a juror being punished for lying about an ideological question during voir dire, I would be interested in hearing the details. To the best of my knowledge; it would be virtually impossible to prove, and the concept of punishing jurors alien to my (geographically limited) exposure to legal culture, probably because it would generate controversy and consume limited prosecutorial resources.
It was rather classy of Mr. Linnekin to post this anecdote, given the probable range of responses.
As I expected, this debate has degenerated into a conundrum on moral parsimony
I see a tradeoff between three things; the integrity of your word, the integrity of the legal system, and the well-being of (in our minds) an innocent about to be thrown in jail.
If we value the legal system at all in this country, we should consider very seriously any actions that undermine its integrity. By the same token that many are arguing here, people who don't value property rights could find it justified to perjure in a vandalism or theft case.
Still, if I were in your situation I might have stayed on the jury to see what happened. I don't know if forfeiting your spot in the jury so that a drug-war bigot takes your spot is consequentially any better than casting morally-neutral judgement as part of it. At least you would give yourself more time to weigh the merits of your decision.
Register one more vote for "interpret the questions in such a way as to truthfully give the answer they want to hear, even if you thereby mislead them". There are very few ideological questions a juror can expect to be asked during voir dire that aren't susceptible to this treatment.
On the other hand, based on the experiences of my friends, I'm not nearly stupid enough to be allowed to serve on a jury in any of the places where I've lived, even if I manage to avoid having my libertarian beliefs uncovered. I'll have to see what happens if and when I ever get a summons from a jurisdiction I still live in at the time I receive it. (I've gotten jury duty notices from DC after I moved back to Michigan, Miami after I moved to Cleveland, and Detroit since I've lived in Chicago...but never one for the city I lived in at the time.)
For reasons unknown, I've never
been called for jury duty in my 64 years. But, if I am ever called for a drug case, knowing what I now know about the fundamental dishonesty, corruption, cruelty,
unconstitutionality, and destructiveness of drug laws, I would make every effort to get on the jury and to render a fair verdict.
IF that verdict "nullifies" a bad law, then I've done my duty to the system, to the constitution, to my fellow citizens.
Hi guys,
am an american living in europe since the , excuse my language, reagan years. After the Bush mafia took over the land of the free swore to never again vote rep. or dem. strong ind/constitutionalist interested but admittingly scared of libertarians... Trail by jury, by YOUR peers. bothered by these interviews designed to stack the jury, espcially in the prosicutions favour. european law, at least German law, is roman based. different then back home in some ways except for one perhaps cynical point...proceedure. courts are no more interested in the truth, just proceedure.Sorry, some folks get really bent out of shape,when confronted with fact, or truth, and that too is somehow relevant to perspective.Back then, stateside, worked a few years in a head shop in Texas. Had to go to the Supreme Court to fight anti paraphanilea laws, as a plantiff.Learned there that at that time a jury could decide if a law was in fact legitamit. Prosicutures/Judges purposely do not inform jurors that they have the power to negate any law on the books they are asked to stand in judgement of, if they find the law unjust.Don´t know if a jury, or more than one is required, but the power of a jury is more than guilt or innocences, it also includes the legitamency of the law itself. There, you should have served. Thanks Mark B,. Krisl-t,brian jp and other commentors... over here it looks really bad back home, you folks really help to believe its not over back there. True Americans and no gov. ass kissing mob of fools, thanks, cause from here, it looks pretty gloomy back home...
by being so brutaling honest in answering, doesn't this skewer the jury?
You did wrong, dude.
You absolutely did the right thing. I don't think that it's very likely that so many people would think like you(us) so that a jury couldn't be found but simply by having more people recuse themselves of jury duty by standing to their principles of drug legalization will convince others that the system is broken.
Drew:
That's a noble goal, but hardly practical for this case.
"Don't worry, kid, I'll get you out of there when we finally convince people that prohibition is a failure!"
Yeah. The goal is nice, but if you avoid all the battles along the way, the war never ends.
i think you should always be honest. about everything. and if that (for you) means not being on the jury- than that's what it means.
Sorry, you missed your chance. Besides all the folks sitting in lockup, because they were smoking....
You may enjoy the seemingly "high road" by pretending that you are so far above it all .....but until you are able to walk the street, not having to worry about being locked up for what?....another lame excuse for some new "social engineering" project cooked up from god knows where...
Ya come across kinda lame, nice article though...can ya forward that to the court house.....or are you afraid of the repercussions?.....
Not lame by any means... it's a legitimate moral quandry.
Not really. The fact that you choose to walk away from it all seeems to idicate and demonstrate the acceptable social norm... I believe what I want, but I won't jepordize my freedom to stand up for it.
c wrote: i think you should always be honest. about everything.
That's just stupid. I’m sorry but read the discussion above about simple thinking like that and then come back with something a bit more thoughtful. Nobody really believes that and if they do you’re morally bankrupt. If you were alive back in the 30's and the Nazis came looking for the Jewish family hiding next door, you mean to tell me the right thing to do is to be honest and turn them in?
Now, whether this was the right time to lie is, I suppose, open to debate (though just barely… I think letting someone suffer imprisonment for a non-crime makes this and easy call - I would have lied as I said above) but saying something like you should always be honest is just bunk and does nothing to advance the discussion because it’s simply false for any thinking person.
You know, I understand that the whole idea of ends justifying means scares alot of people, and it definately does not apply in all cases, but one of the wonderful things about being human is that we do not need to live by hard rules, we can think, consider, decide, and even fudge. The problem here, is that your honesty has cancelled your ability to make a difference on this case. Can telling the truth really be a moral action when it leads to a man losing his freedom (something you value) for engaging in an action you do not believe should be illegal?
Lets take another step, though. Why do you care about what was the "moral" thing to do? You don't believe that adult drug use should be a crime, you don't feel that this man should be exposed to the horrors of our correctional system because of it, why shouldn't you lie to get a chance to game the system?
Revolutions inherantly illegal and war cannot be moral. Why should you bind your hands and play by the rules when others do not? Why should you sit by and see the government take a man's freedom for doing nothing wrong? Ok, so you told the truth. The Judge patted you on the head, your old Sunday school teacher beamed with ride, you got the warm squishy feeling of standing your ground without actually having to make yourself uncomfortable. Meanwhile, a man is likely facing several years in jail, where he will be forced to live with a total lack of liberty, daily brutality, a high likelyhood of rape, and even if he survives he has few prospects because a felony drug record closes most jobs to him and makes him inelligable for federal loans to go to college.
You want someone to tell you its ok, that you took the highroad? Bullshit. You folded at the first sign of danger. You decided to make a nice safe public statement letting everyone know where you thought the proceedings were a sham even though you knew it would mean that you would be disqualified. Congratulations, you flinched.
Change must come from within.
My two cents: A jury should admit people with all kinds of personal convictions, including the conviction that the law upon which the case is based shouldn't even exist. Problem is, the State tries to exclude these people by asking them the questions you had to answer. The State does not have any right to do this, since it creates a biased jury from the very beginning: no juror will be there to represent those (many) people who believe that drug prohibition is wrong in itself. So you had the moral right to lie if you decided it was the best thing to do. The only way to exclude that bias, for people with your convictions about drugs, is to lie when answering those questions.
That said, I don't think your being honest was morally wrong at all. I just think you could have done better, as you probably would if you had a bit more time to consider as you're doing now all the issues involved before taking the decision.
For what it's worth I admire your honesty. Unfortunately the American Way does not reward honesty. As a compulsive truth teller, I am learning that honesty might be the best policy, but only if everybody else agrees. Unfortunately people who lie are often rewarded with exactly what they want. If you believe in Karma then they will ultimately get what they deserve. If you are realistic you just sit there pissed off while you tell the truth and get screwed, while liars feed bullshit and come out ahead.
I think you should have lied, I wish you did, but I can't say you did the wrong thing by telling the truth. Do you think a MADD zealot would tell the truth if she were a prospective juror for a DUI trial? I don't.
I once begged off a jury by saying that my experience taught me that a police officer was much more likely to lie on the stand than a civilian witness. It was the truth. I was thanked for my time and excused. I sometimes wonder if I should have lied and gotten on that 5 day murder trial. Is it fair for me to sit on a jury when I am a person that the system does not want there? As to whether the system is fair that may be a battle to be fought eslewhere than a jury room.
your head's in the right place, and you did make a political statement in your response to the court. but still, that defendant, whose innocence you believe in, was left without an ally in his struggle when you answered honestly. sometimes the best way to tear down the master's house is to use the master's tools.
It's a tough dilemma, and I'm not sure what the right answer is.
To those who say the right thing to do was lie, suppose you saw someone buying drugs on the street, and you were summoned as a witness. Would you lie on the witness stand if it would prevent the buyer and seller from being sent to jail?
IMHO, jury nullification is a misguided strategy. It's an attempt at nonviolent resistance without risk to one's self. The juror who declines to vote guilty need offer no reason for his refusal, and so is in little danger of prosecution for lying during selection.
But if you were willing to risk prosecution, you'd have little reason to lie. You can take that risk merely by declining the "invitation" to service. And you can be forthright about your reasons.
You're conflicted and so am I. To my understanding, the only hope and the only means sparing prospective victims of the state, is to be found the will to stand in their place--to make yourself the target of prosecution.
As a couple of others have alluded to, it's really the voir dire process that you should have a problem with.
A juror's responsibility is to rule on the case presented. If a juror considers the law or punishment unjust as applied to the case then the juror has the right to vote for acquital.
The voir dire questions they ask only serve to bias the jury in favor of the prosecution. IMHO, the only things that should disqualify a juror is a relationship with any party in the case or if the juror could benefit or be harmed by the outcome of the case.
Vin Suprynowicz has written several good articles on voir dire.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvr...n/
11617459.html
http://www.loompanics.com/
Articl...hAmendment.html
http://www.sierratimes.com/archi.../oct/31/
vin.htm
http://www.enterstageright.com/
a...1juryrights.htm
To those who say the right thing to do was lie, suppose you saw someone buying drugs on the street, and you were summoned as a witness. Would you lie on the witness stand if it would prevent the buyer and seller from being sent to jail?
Yes.
Jury nulification is a nice idea, but the deck is so stacked against it that its really not a viable option. I think you did the right thing by telling the truth, theres enough liars in this country that it would be nice if at least a few people speak the truth as they see it.
Besides, you would have been passed over in favor of spongebob in the next phase of selection.
Since you didn't post the questions you had to answer, it's hard for me to say. But I've already made up my own mind. Several points went into my choice, mostly touched on already:
1. The Court will lie to you and tell you that your only job is to decide if the evidence shows that a crime as defined by the law was committed. In fact, you also have the job of deciding whether the law itself is right.
2. The Court will lie to you and tell you that as a juror you are bound to uphold the law. No. The Judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel, the bailiffs, the recorders, they are all bound by the law. The jury is free. That's the point of a jury trial. A judge alone would be a superior trier of fact.
3. The voir dire process as practiced today is a violation of the defendent's civil rights by eliminating those 'just men and true' that disapprove of an unrighteous law, and a violation of the eliminated juror's civil right to express his opinion of that law by nullifying it.
4. It is wrong for me to cooperate with an unjust process in any way that tends to support it's unjust ends.
So I will freely misinterpret or lie on those voir dire forms or in any testimony required before I am seated on a jury. IMO, if they don't have the right to ask, then I DO have the right to give an answer that will give the same result as the question never having been asked.
Just one cranky freeman's opinion.
I can fully understand your dilemma since I was faced with the same question a few years ago. I did as you did, and afterwards had very similar second thoughts, although in my case there were also reasons of my health to consider (I am disabled with a condition that renders me unable to think clearly or cope physically at unpredictable intervals). I was aware of jury nullification in principle but had no idea of its efficacy nor how to go about it, as I'd read it was very rarely done successfully. Are there any stats. available on this subject?
In my case, another juror found from me the courage to say he was too emotionally involved on the issue to be sure he could vote acquittal if only a reasonable doubt was proved. So at least I had some good effect, however slight.
I was in a similar situation two years ago except that the questions were asked in public rather than private. We were seated in the jury box and each person was in turn asked to answer a set of yes/no questions, elaborating as necessary, loudly enough that the judge and all others present could hear. In stating my position that both the drug charge and the weapons possession charge were not morally valid and that I could not in good conscience vote to convict on that sort of offense, it's possible I influenced other jurors in the room to take that position into account. I certainly hope so.
Had the questions been asked and answered in a more private setting, I hope I would have answered differently.
You absolutely did the right thing; even more so in that you did not obfuscate or resort to casuistic trickery as recommended by some commenters.
As a nascent Quaker, I would have done exactly the same thing, based on the Testimony of Integrity. (Except that I wouldn't have "sworn" to tell the truth!)
BTW, I agree strongly with you about legalization.
i like many of the answers here, even where the opposite conclusions are reached.
One point i do not see mentioned. It seems to me that the system is putting such huge burden on people in making them serve. I have a small firm that has to gross $2000 per business day to make me a living. So demanding that i submit to this loss of a day and potentially many many days is a rather onerous tax.
The answer on how to proceed, lie or truth, becomes for me wrapped in the expense of this tax when added to the others i already pay. Can i afford to try to lie and free a man, especially given that I am such a bad liar. Do I become one of them in lying, like Bush is made a terrorist by his fight against terror.
I do not know the answer really for me, and I most certainly, therefore do not know it for you.
Commenting by HaloScan
