I praise the author's courage in pointing out that juries have a responsibility to Justice and law secondary. Justice is the responsibility of the people. People's law guarantees liberty, justice, and truth. A jury is the people's last defense against a tyrancal government. If rules and evidence can be controlled, the final verdict of the jury can become predictable. I say, a jury should have the power too decided what evidence is admissible, a jury should have the power too decide, if a law is unconstitutional and have the right to dismiss the law according to their conscience.

A jury represents the finest power given too the people to administer Justice. Expediency is a power oriented goal for the law. Should a computer be given the power too decide guilt or innocence? The goal of law must always be too seek Justice. Objectivity and impartiality does not necessary guarantee justice. In any serious charge the defendant should always have the right to a jury. The power of Judges too administer Justice needs too be contracted and constrainted and the jury power expanded - maintaining the power too see Justice is served. Therefore, it seems the Judge and Jury are at odds with each other; the judge seeking more control over the jury by increasing his power and capability and the jury reliquishing its discernment power and confining itself too the boundaries of the law as explained by the judge. Can a judge rule on verdicts more wisely than a jury? Historically, for serious crime the English common law brought the King as a party in the criminal case? How did the crime hurt the king? Why did the king entangle himself into the criminal case? Is prosecuting crime really about forced collection of money?

An eye for an eye mean compensation for injury not revenge. The parties have the right to work out a negotiation for compensation. An eye for an eye did not mean two people walked around blind. Does the law sometimes attempt to be so objective that both parties walk around blind? Where is the discernment power? Should juries be given the power too discern guilt or innocence? Has law become too much like a business negotiation between a big company and the small business?

The power migration to the Judges must swing back towards the Jury. The defendant is entitled too defense counsel, a speedy trial, and an impartial jury for an serious charge. The state uses tax money to pay for courts and attorneys to represent the state's interest. It is in the best interest of the state to prosecute crime because crime is big business. When the defendants rights are forfeited, Justice is not served; Justice can not be fair if the power is removed from the people too decide what is Just.

The fact that the State becomes entangled in serious crimes where party one wrongs party two seems unconstitutional. The case should be between the parties involved in the crime. A fee should be paid to the court for usage of the facility. A jury should be selected from among individuals the parties know. A jury member should be able to bring insight and information to other jury members about the circumstances of the case.

The law should not be revengeful, instead it should only offer compensation for damage. In the Milcray case, the law measured "intent" equivalent with "depravation of human life"; so, if the defendant demonstrated by a reasonable doubt - heinous disreguard for human life, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder. The test for mental intent did not necessary have to be proven.


Avoid This Book   May 25, 2004
 11 out of 18 found this review helpful

This is a terrible book by an atrocious author. The author is not very likable; at the start he has made up his mind about the case, so he makes fun of the other jurors for being stupid, especially the ones that don't support his position. His arrogance comes through easily, making long winded speeches to his fellow jurors and "putting them in their place" when they say things he doesn't like (despite his being younger than most of them).

He says early on that it was his goal to "hang the jury," and the only rationale he gives for that is that his whole experience in life has been academia, where the discussion essentially never ends, and he just doesn't have it in him to make such a final decision. How odd!

There are no real insights into the criminal justice process, just lots of very high-brow language that sounds almost put-on. Also, he exerpts from his diary at one point--showing that even in his personal life, this fellow can only write pretensiously.

Avoid this book!