[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

So you haven't sat on a jury .....

How does that affect anything? it's a losing tactic to focus on the unimportant details rather then tackling the issues at hand Omah.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

How does that affect anything? it's a losing tactic to focus on the unimportant details rather then tackling the issues at hand Omah.

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" .....

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" .....

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials? The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials? The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

That's just out and out rudeness Dezzy and is unnecessary.

If someone can't enter a debates thread to discuss a serious debate without being sworn and verbally abused by a moderator - then it's a very poor show.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials?

See below :

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's

Well, I HAVE done jury service and say on FOUR juries, dealing with child molestation, firearms offences, murder and fraud.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

Because, IMO, you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

Frankly, I don't see the point.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

See below :



Well, I HAVE done jury service and say on FOUR juries, dealing with child molestation, firearms offences, murder and fraud.



Because, IMO, you don't know what you're talking about.



Frankly, I don't see the point.

It's very easy to say that you've done something on the internet so I tend to focus on the arguments at hand and you haven't provided a solid one since I cut through your little quotes so instead you've been focused on trying to make out you're an expert on the subject without actually adding anything to the topic.

I don't have to bring in my own credentials into this since I can rely on my own argument to get things done, You lack a cohesive argument so all you can do is try to discredit me. You're transparent in your approach Omah and I can't see the point in carrying on this charade since it's obvious you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's very easy to say that you've done something on the internet so I tend to focus on the arguments at hand and you haven't provided a solid one since I cut through your little quotes so instead you've been focused on trying to make out you're an expert on the subject without actually adding anything to the topic.

I don't have to bring in my own credentials into this since I can rely on my own argument to get things done, You lack a cohesive argument so all you can do is try to discredit me. You're transparent in your approach Omah and I can't see the point in carrying on this charade since it's obvious you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in.

Isn't that the very point of healthy debate? To discredit the 'opponents' arguement, to persuade others to accept your point of view based upon the arguments & points being made?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Isn't that the very point of healthy debate? To discredit the 'opponents' arguement, to persuade others to accept your point of view based upon the arguments & points being made?

Its not enough though to simply discredit those who have opposing views, Backing up what you say with reliably sourced facts and statistics helps.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Isn't that the very point of healthy debate? To discredit the 'opponents' arguement, to persuade others to accept your point of view based upon the arguments & points being made?

Yeah by countering their argument, Omah has just been focusing on me and ignoring my arguments which is always a sign of defeat. I've put up some points which he has chosen to ignore in favour of bleating about his experience without actually detailing anything useful of the process...

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Silly woman.

I do agree that Jury Duty shouldn't be compulsory though, why put someone's future in the hands of a person so irresponsible?

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Compulsory Jury Duty is a flawed concept and is one of the reasons why our law system has it's failings. While a juror's uninterest can be seen as a plus as it means they aren't going to take things as seriously either, someone who doesn't want to be there will just go with whatever gets them out of it quicker rather then actually taking in the facts of a case and making an educated decision and to put the fate of someone in the hands of someone so disinterested is reckless and foolish.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I tend to focus on the arguments at hand. I can rely on my own argument to get things done.

So your argument is :

a) Compulsory Jury Duty is a flawed concept and is one of the reasons why our law system has it's failings.

Well, that appears to be a massive unsubstantiated generalisation.

b) While a juror's uninterest can be seen as a plus as it means they aren't going to take things as seriously either, someone who doesn't want to be there will just go with whatever gets them out of it quicker rather then actually taking in the facts of a case and making an educated decision and to put the fate of someone in the hands of someone so disinterested is reckless and foolish.

At best, hypothesis; at worst, naive postulation.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

So your argument is :

a) Compulsory Jury Duty is a flawed concept and is one of the reasons why our law system has it's failings.

Well, that appears to be a massive unsubstantiated generalisation.

b) While a juror's uninterest can be seen as a plus as it means they aren't going to take things as seriously either, someone who doesn't want to be there will just go with whatever gets them out of it quicker rather then actually taking in the facts of a case and making an educated decision and to put the fate of someone in the hands of someone so disinterested is reckless and foolish.

At best, hypothesis; at worst, naive postulation.

Well it is a flawed concept because it isn't perfect either so it has to be flawed. By making it compulsory they run the risk of tainting a jury with someone who doesn't take it as seriously as it should be taken. I've known a lot of people who have done it and have not given it the respect or effort it requires. Why risk the public's safety or someone's fate by including people who don't want to be there?

Make it optional and there's a better chance of getting juries who recognise the gravity and responsibility of the role instead of ones that are just going to wing it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" .....

I disagree....One jury is equal to the next...picked at random , a cross section of peers that as civil duty sit on a jury.....Whats wrong with that?..

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I disagree....One jury is equal to the next...picked at random , a cross section of peers that as civil duty sit on a jury.....Whats wrong with that?..

Blimey ..... I sat on FOUR juries and the composition of each was totally different ..... and there were no peers, but we had a rather well-spoken Jewish jewellers wife who looked like Joan Collins on one jury .....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

Blimey ..... I sat on FOUR juries and the composition of each was totally different ..... and there were no peers, but we had a rather well-spoken Jewish jewellers wife who looked like Joan Collins on one jury .....

I misunderstood you soz, haha what you like?..
Talking of peers can you imagine 'lord' sugar on a jury?....Your fired!..er, I mean guilty...lol

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I misunderstood you soz, haha what you like?..
Talking of peers can you imagine 'lord' sugar on a jury?....Your fired!..er, I mean guilty...lol