The Thomas Paul Murphy Music Player

"You might think that I am off base, but I am published by the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Thomas Paul Murphy

Friday, January 24, 2014

A Jury of his Peers 01 24 2014 Updated

A Jury of his Peers 01 24 2014
What is meant by that and what standards come in to play?
When it says a jury of ones peers it means a commonality doesn’t it!  But that commonality does not extend to the point whereby all the peers commit the same crime in industry!  For a Jury of one’s peers cannot be criminals who have yet to be prosecuted!
For Jesus Christ a Jury of his peers would have been his disciples; and not those of an upper wealth class who plotted to kill people or an invading army?
And maybe blood type comes into play?  Rh Positives defendants cannot have members on a Jury who are Rh Negative but not vice versa.
For white collar crime, should a jury of your peers be middle class white people?  No this jury should be hard working intelligent people who have not committed a crime.  So here a Jury of ones peers would be what a person is expected to be if they are in such an industry.  But what if it has been found that certain industries have weeded out those who would convict them?  Then a jury of your peers is the general public?  But what if the Public is purposefully confused and deemed to believe there was never a crime committed?  And what if that is standard industry practice in such industries to make the public believe they are not as smart as they really are?
For a Fraternity house whereby the students are likely to graduate and go into similar fields and indeed maintain a network over time;
if a woman was gang raped at that Fraternity would a jury of the defendant’s peers be allowed to include other members of fraternities or in some cases Fraternities are the equivalent of secret societies aren’t they!  So members of secret societies should never be allowed to be on a Jury whatsoever!  And you could never know one way or another because they keep it a secret from that day in college don’t they? Sounds like the beginnings of a new Sherlock Holmes mystery!
For a poor black man would that mean the poor and also blacks.
Now this is touching on the issue of the last article, For a mentally defective person that could not mean a jury of the mentally defective too.
 But what about for a disabled person?  Would that not mean a jury of those who were disabled too?  But as in the prior article those who were born mentally defective would have to be excluded.
Now let’s say a boy is raped in the Boy Scouts by an Eagle Scout and goes on a shooting rampage because of it?  Who would a jury of his peers be?  Well the truth be told there are so many victims like him that a jury of his peers could indeed be those who were victimized the same way? In this case a jury of his peers would likely never convict him!
Should a son whose father was not an alcohol be judged by those whose father was?
Not what of a person who has dyslexia?  The Puritans got into this issue!  Today one in 5 Americans has dyslexia!  It really means you can’t read.  And maybe some who claim that they can read who have been diagnosed with dyslexia can really just recognize the size and shape of a word for consistency and make a match; much like an Orangutan or Gorilla would know a Rhesus monkey when it saw one? 
So should an educated man ever be judged by those who cannot read?  The answer is yes and no isn’t it!  Sometimes that would be how the best justice could be served and sometimes that could be how the worst justice could be served; for example if those dyslexics were easily convinced by the emotional power of argument to identify with the defendant!  But what if it were the other case?  When because they could not read it would take forever to convince them of the defendant’s innocence?  And what would happen if in fact there was not even a District Attorney who could accurately understand what crime has been committed in order to prosecute or defend?  What if a District Attorney could not be convinced because he was not of the level of intelligence required to comprehend the crime?
And when we turn on the television we really do expect to see legitimate people don’t we?  But what if they were not?  What if they were indeed networked by whose zooming who and whose bastard child is that really and who slept with everyone to get where she is.  Then what happens?  Then the American public is facing legislation and legislative influence; a legal action by what quid pro quo could be considered a jury with the public being a defendant!  Now that is really inciting civil unrest and an impeachable offense if it was the President!  But in that day and age we never had the power of the television to create propaganda and civil unrest did we!  I think you see the congruity of this paragraph!
Now what if someone claims demonic possession in their defense?  How could that be claimed?  Because they were inundated by voices in their head that were indeed not their own or originating from their own consciousness. So now we have a split; what if the defendant is mentally defective to the point that its entire mental life was just that reception based on others being demonically possessed; now he cannot indeed claim that defense because he was always mentally defective.  In contrast to someone who became disabled later on in life when they reach adulthood and it is time for them to find that high paying career and start a family and buy a home.  Then one wonders, and this is the crux of it, why did it happen to that person at that very stage in their life!  And of course one then asks the question if there was a person or group of people that caused that to happen what was their motivation and what does it reveal about their mentality and ability to support a family in our modern world in a highly developed country!!!!
If the notion of a Jury of our peers came from our Founding Fathers it would indeed be meant to exclude the English and those of English surname; like those from the Revolutionary War.  And that concept can be expanded to include a Jury of an Americans Peers should not include anyone from other countries we went to war with?  Viet Nam, (effectively China), Even the South of the United States in the Civil War, how about Germans, Italian and Japanese immigrants to the United States who were on the Axis side?  What have we defeated in the History of the United States that we should never have to ever be faced with again in contention?  We have fought for freedom and defeated that which compromises it!  But what if from currently available scientific knowledge we learned that our freedom was indeed being compromised by that which we should never have to put up with, but just a few people here and there would be culled so as not to make an increased public awareness of the issue?  How do we address that?
And what if those responsible for disseminating new discoveries in science failed to do so for personal interests such as money and social status?  In other words what if colleges and Universities did not serve the purpose for what they were intended to be and instead graduates sought to make money by actively compromising the health of honest Americans?  And what if after awhile of getting away with that some organization that collects money for television rights to college sports decides that it will pay those who have athletic talent to go to Ivy League college?  And that point we could indeed draw the line and make all Universities in the United States Public!  We could just say, that is it enough!  And another good point that I have made in the past for all the hoopla people claim with regard to their expensive college degrees for some reason children are not as smart as they were!  And we are not getting qualified teachers from those college degrees.  And perhaps the worst of it being the causative factors of learning disabilities are not being addressed by those with expensive doctorate degrees!  So the composition of a Jury of one’s peers becomes skewed; and therefore justice cannot be properly served, enforced or legislated.
Okay that is it for this one.  Just sat down to type while I am eating my chicken nuggets from the grocery stores and two slices of half toasted bread after I put a coating on some wood boxes which I had carved the images of the following animals on for the first time: Rhino, Warthog, Wild Boar, Grizzly Bear Head, Tiger Head, Two Northern Pike and a BlueGill, Whitetail Buck Deer.  By the way I hope they never become a Jury of my peers.Somehow the idea came to me that storing things in wood boxes made strong but very inexpensively looks better than cardboard boxes.
And I have to wonder if the National Guard has ever been called in to fight against those who were truly fighting for America and our Constitution?  Can a stacked deck of cards work that way?  I believe it already has in some cases.

And what if no matter where you go you are not among your peers?  Is that a sign that we have degraded to the status of a third world country?  One could easily make the argument that when a countries poor reach a certain level that country has degraded to the status of a third world country.  Then one asks themselves the causality!

What if there was an underground pagan occult element in our society that believed in killing modern prophets in order to maintain personal integrity and an odd form of monotheism which the  causality of relates to a mental defect?


A Jury of His Peers Part 2

For example I am reading a book silently to myself and you are reading a different book silently to yourself, and we have no problem with each other doing that.  But for some reason this primitive being would have a problem with one of us doing that; in fact for some reason that would make them very disturbed.  Is it because that primitive element senses that reading is the result of a brain that was imprinted by a loving process and far different than their own; in effect what they try and capture by disturbing a classroom or molesting children’s minds with drugs; is that element of human love that they will never experience no matter how hard they try.  That behavior by an adult would be less than human wouldn’t it!  Right?  “I don’t want that person to be able to think for themselves!”  That is a less than human initiative isn’t it!  Again you and I are both reading silently to ourselves and we have no problem with each other doing that.  And maybe that should be the new standard of what a normal adult human being should be considered to be!  Something about respecting the rights of others; plays a big role in the text of our Constitution doesn’t it!

Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 01 24 2014 at:
Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy

No comments:

Post a Comment