I was all done posting for the night and then I found this over at Joyful Christian. An excerpt:
According to a new guidebook for the plaintiff's bar, trial lawyers are advised to be wary of potential jurors with "extreme attitudes about personal responsibility."
"It is helpful to divide the jurors into two groups: the personal responsibility group and compassion-altruistic group,"
Guess which group is the more desirable. That's right, the "compassion-altruistic" group. Thankfully, the author responds thusly:
Responsibility and accountability, historically speaking, have been considered desirable qualities. The lack of either has been considered a grave flaw. Sticking one's hand in the fire correctly results in a burn: It should not result in suing the oven maker, plus the person who installed the oven, the person who drove the delivery truck, the appliance maker, and the gas company. The person who attempted such a suit would be considered a lout, and any juror who responded positively to such a suit would reasonably be considered a partner in crime.
In Wenner's world, however, jurors who shift blame are "compassionate" and "altruistic" — far superior to those who hold someone personally responsible for his actions. It's yet another reminder that some lawyers are much more an offense to justice than common criminals.
One point that wasn't made in the article: current court decisions are based on law and precedent. Take the traditional, Christian world-view out of the juries and you establish bad (dare I say evil?) precedents which will in turn drive future court decisions. This is anathema to me. They are literally jury-rigging the courts in order to hijack them. Courts filled with "compassionate, altruistic" people mean big awards for dumb people, which in turn means big expense accounts, big houses, and fast cars for the lawyers.
I weep anew for this country.
