I was ordered to report for jury duty at 9 am this morning. I showed up at the Wake County Courthouse promptly at 9. At about 9:30, the administrator swore in all the jurors. We put our hands on the Bible and she administered the oath. The correct answer was yes. I was forced to say no.
One of the criteria for taking the oath was that I would be impartial in decisions I make. I simply can not do that. And here's why.
It is my firm belief that most police officers will either lie, omit exculpatory evidence, or so twist the truth such that it is barely recognizable from what actually happened, in order to obtain a verdict of guilty.
It is my firm belief that most district attorneys representing the state of North Carolina will intentionally obscure evidence, fabricate fantastic scenarios, or deny defense access to exculpatory evidence in order to obtain a verdict of guilty.
There are, of course, exceptions to those who would engage in the above behavior, but the number of those who would make it impossible to ascertain the legitimacy of those who would not to any degree of certainty.
It is my firm belief that all defense attorneys will lie, either directly or by withholding the entire truth as it is fully know to them, in order to obtain a verdict of not guilty.
Most defendants who are actually guilty will lie to save themselves. And the ones who are truly not guilty have no business being there in the first place except for the general incompetence of various investigatory agencies and the overzealousness of district attorneys attempting to make a name for themselves or to win election. Further, the grand jury system has become a laughingstock, nothing more than a rubber stamp for the state to exert its power over the people in almost random application.
Even so, the playing field can never be level. Defendants who can not afford an accomplished attorney are overwhelmed by the power of the state, Defendants who can afford an accomplished attorney can overwhelm the capabilities of the state since the state is so overwhelmed themselves with case loads, inadequate facilities, understaffing, and lack of time for preparation. Yes, money talks, not necessarily facts.
Eyewitness testimony is essentially worthless regardless of its source. That has been absolutely proven time and time again, yet the courts insist on relying heavily on such testimony both for and against a defendant.
Much scientific evidence is suspect at best, and that which is not is generally well beyond the capability of the average juror to understand. Yet jurors are required to make decisions based on that evidence, oft times presented by certified experts who are available to the highest bidder.
Opening and closing arguments have become candidates for Oscar nominations, complete with histrionics, rather than summations of facts and truth, done so in an attempt to sway the jury by ignoring factual evidence in lieu of emotional argument.
And, at least in North Carolina, judges at the district and superior court level are elected in nothing more than a popularity contest, or one rigged as the result of gerrymandering. The only qualifications required to become a judge in this state are that you pass the bar exam (and do so in an indeterminate number of tries,) not have committed an act so vile that you are disbarred (and even then you can have your license restored,) and be able to win that popularity contest.
The laws themselves have become so convoluted that no one -- and I truly mean no one -- can understand the intricacies of them, let alone reconcile the many internal contradictions. Further, many of our laws now resort to prima facie elements rather than requiring the state to prove intent. And without intent, there can not be a crime committed regardless of what the lawyers in the legislature say as part of the job protection acts they regularly pass so as to secure continued employment after their political careers have ended.
The entire system is broken. And I truly would like to participate in the process if it actually worked anymore. But it does not. And because it does not, I can not truthfully answer yes to the oath of a juror.
The kicker in all this comes when I am queried in open court as to why I can not render a fair and impartial verdict. When I tell the truth of the matter as I did above, I become subject to a contempt charge and stand the possibility of being sent to jail -- simply because I told the truth. Or I could lie like everyone else in that room, but that would compromise my values and I am not willing to do that just to appease the wishes of a system that has become hopelessly flawed and possibly beyond repair.
I do not take this position lightly, nor has it developed recently, but it is the culmination of witnessing decades of abject injustice, lying, cheating, corruption, and incompetence in our present day judicial system -- on both sides of the court and both sides of the bench. I have seen untold numbers of people violate not only legislative law, but also moral law, yet continue to walk free only to commit more crimes against their fellow citizens. I have watched untold numbers of guilty people, along with some innocent people, be sent to prison or lose their life's work simply because they were randomly picked to act as examples to others; so much for equal protection under the law.
My problem is that I have no idea of what to do about it. So I just abrogate myself of all responsibility and not serve, diminishing my role as a citizen of the United States as a direct result of my own honesty.
And there is something fundamentally wrong with being forced into that position.
