| | In his article, Kyrel wrote: The ideal and definitive governmental system is one with no tolerance for the initiation of (physical) force or (financial) fraud by others against the sacred and untouchable individual, and no tolerance for socio-economic taxation or regulation by government against this same sacred and untouchable individual.
Bob Kolker replied: No compulsory jury duty. So how do we manage fair citizen regulated trials of accused persons presumed to be innocent? No subpoena of evidence in trials. No regulated searches and seizures. No arrests prior to indictment or trial. In short a system in which fair trial is not possible. Congratulations!
Kyrel responded: In a free society jury duty would be voluntary but probably paid -- like military duty. Subpoenas violate the First and Fifth Amendments, and so don't apply to private citizens at criminal trials -- just government officials operating in their official capacities. But in a free state the voluntary cooperation of juries and third parties in criminal matters can be relied upon. And American-style arrests, searches, and seizures of people who are objectively criminal suspects would still obtain. This wouldn't violate the "no force, no fraud" rule.
Bob then replied, A paid jury is a potentially bribed jury. You are extremely naive. In a society full of devils the world will rapidly become hell. The "good guys" would have to form a gang to keep the "bad guys" in check. We would need stealth vigilantes. We still would need authority of law to gather evidence and force people to testify.
There are several issues that need to be untangled here.
Let's first consider the issue of jury duty. Bob's objection is that paid jury duty would amount to bribery. However, paying someone to serve on a jury is not paying them to vote a certain way; it is simply paying them to render a verdict as they see fit. Judges get paid for doing this. Ever watch "People's Court"? Should judges be forced to rule on cases without being paid, because paying them would open them up to potential bribery? And if not, then why should jurors be forced to render a verdict without being paid?
Secondly, compulsory jurors can be bribed to render a biased verdict just as easily as paid jurors can. In fact, jurors who aren't paid are more likely to take money to vote a certain way than those who are.
Next, we have the issue of subpoenas which Kyrel says violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Here I would disagree. The First Amendment simply says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There is nothing in the First Amendment addressing the issue of subpoenas.
The same is true of the Fifth Amendment, which states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The Fifth Amendment simply says that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It says nothing against being compelled to testify against another.
In any case, a subpoena to testify (against another) is not an initiation of force, but is rather a form of retaliatory force. By refusing to testify, a potential witness is protecting the criminal from being prosecuted and therefore acting, in effect, as his accomplice. It's the same issue as that of an apartment owner who refuses to allow the police to enter his building to arrest a murder suspect. By forcibly entering the premises and arresting the suspect, the police are using force against the apartment owner, but it's retaliatory force, because the owner has no right to harbor a suspected criminal. If he does, he is acting as the criminal's accomplice.
Arrests before trial are also justified. The police have the right to arrest a criminal suspect, even though he has not yet been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, the law will not properly be able to establish his guilt or innocence. But in order to arrest him as a suspect, they must have sufficient evidence. They cannot arrest him arbitrarily without violating his civil rights.
Searches and seizures must also conform to the Fourth Amendment, which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In short, compulsory jury duty violates civil rights, because it constitutes the initiation of force. However, subpoenas, arrests before trial and compulsory searches and seizures that are reasonable and justified by the evidence do not. The latter are all forms of retaliatory force.
- Bill
|
|
