Jury abolition poll

[Wolf_RBX]

@LegitimateIyRyan

it would require a constitutional amendment to the FS const (article 3 section 12)

that’s why this whole thing is being brought up, as we are currently reviewing article 3 of the constitution as part of the re-write of the constitution

[thekerbal]

Jury unanimity goes in line with the burden of proof and should not be changed on its own

[Fastbird4]

I agree with @anon54114525, there has to be some sort of Jury Duty system we can enact.

Maybe the courts could set up an application to the general public (announce in #state-announcements) to sign-up for jury duty (must be in discord and have a forums account). It will have basic questions to show basic knowledge of Firestone law to dismiss trolls. You can also do background checks; for case-to-case situations, review their juror file to prevent biased jurors. This also cuts back on “forcing people” as they applied to do it.

You can then summon by subpoena like 30 random (use a random name drawing website) jurors, and figure out who can actually attend, out of 30, you can narrow down at least 6 or so people (whatever the amount is required) to actually be present in court that day.

Of course, you can’t MAKE them join it, it’s a video game, you just see if they want to at random, that’s why I said a large number like 30 because odds are, you can get a few people eligible.

Now, this seems like a lot, but through legislation, it can be assigned to clerks to manage, maybe even allow more clerks to be hired just to handle jury duty.

[Automationeer]

@Automationeer

people who are forced to be a juror, like irl, are going to be less attentive, which in turn will cause more disputes and more mistrials

@thekerbal

The problem doesn’t have to do with jury selection? I’ve found that most people who are willing to join the jury are fine, especially on the Courts Discord. Forcing people to join is logistically and ethically impossible and just causes more issues.

[Fastbird4]

Another suggestion so that we can prevent mistrials from a juror who slipped through the cracks is to allow supermajority voting on a verdict. I’ve been a jury before, as a head juror, where it was a mistrial due to someone biased, the juror was friends with the guilty party and locked as he only voted not guilty.

Or maybe to compromise, if the jury can’t unanimously agree, and a supermajority verdict is done (like 9-2 guilty), the judge must consider lowering the sentence time.

[Wolf_RBX]

@Fastbird4

It will have basic questions to show basic knowledge of Firestone law

To be honest I’d be willing to have a jury competency test implemented

[DannyboyJurist]

I have never had a jury that was competent and free of problems in my entire 5 year service to the legal system. And, hilariously still, have never had a jury verdict I wouldn’t have come to were I the sole trier of fact (when they don’t mistrial us to hell). They’re redundant, incompetent, and a useless waste of time. I support their complete abolition, and my draft on Article III planned to do just that. If I have to settle with them being removed in at least civil cases, I shall do so.

[crankyluke]

Support