Do you want me to remove it ?

 

the pole is me

 

I thought you were the girl?!

 

I think that's correct, James. Also, I think the idea is that prosecutors should not be allowed to "charge" anyone with these felonies. The system (maybe) works better if the jurors representing the county/state actually issue charges.

Oh, forgot to mention, it's also a majority vote (23 jurors, 12 majority), rather than unanimous decision. I would think this allows a jury to deliberate much quicker (not a bad thing, given that guilt/innocence isn't being decided.

 

(oops, sorry, it appears this thread has gone a-whorin' since James and I were chatting. Pardon the blast of intelligence. )

 

The problem is that the Grand Jury system is so biased towards prosecution that the idea that it actually serves justice is, to me, laughable.

I understand the concept of what it is trying to accomplish, but it seems to me that with no oversight it is, as Chaz states, merely a formality.

 

Yup... NO argument here, Brunt. Honestly, as I mentioned to James, I didn't mind getting excused out of this obligation. One of the people who "volunteered" was apparently narcoleptic, but I kept my mouth shut. Bottom line: I think trial jury service is useful to the system; not this.

As for trials, I hate the inefficiency of the process, but I do believe in the jury concept.

 

words words words! i work for an hour come back and its back to all this intelligent talk..

 

Sucks, don't it, Beaner?

 

im gonna veto this thread.