Talk:Fully Informed Jury Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

naem - Er, not sure how this discussion page works. Don't really use wiki on the developing side of things. Anyway, this article is so blatantly biased it hurts to read it on this website. Hell, I agree with a lot of the stuff that they're saying but it's got a slant to it that is undeniable. This article only links to FIJA and FIJA-supporting websites, and the "sources" credited are written by people affiliated with FIJA! I really want to hear from an opposor of FIJA so that I can get some input from the "other side."

I'm also personally interested in answers to questions that FIJA's website could not answer for me. For example, if jury nullification occurs and is in direct violation of the judge's instructions, can a juror be cited for contempt of court? FIJA's website has a ton of propaganda, and it's difficult to discern what the law is and what the law should be in various instances on the website, as the two seem to be used interchangeably.

(Okay, after looking over this article's history, it seems the NPOV flag was spontaneously removed, yet none of the disputed content was modified. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on in this discussion area pertaining to that, either. What's going on?)

I think that "is a national organization" should always include information about what nation it is referring to.

SteveG - Realistically, this article comes off with more slant than a bag of roofing tiles, and until someone can think of a good solution or a rephrasing that doesnt make so many unattributable remarks, or state the organisation's views as material facts, we should leave it flagged as a probable NPOV problem.

In my opnion the paragraph "FIJA, as a human rights organization, recognizes that the United States, with 5 percent of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population, has become a nation of harmless, wrongly-imprisoned citizens, who should not have been convicted." would be better worded. Otherewise I dont see any other problem with this article. Please be spefic which part(s) of the article is NPOV and the reason for why these parts are NPOV Zarutian 20:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

To those who have strong opinions that this page is "POV", etc. a few comments and questions. First FIJA is an advocacy and public education and lobbying group working on an extremely important and controversial issue in the United States: The historic and inherent right (or not) of a criminal trial jury to refuse to enforce any law they consider repugnant to freedom. Furthermore, what we seek to accomplish is very threatening to some very powerful special interest groups: The legal industry, including lawyers and judges; legislators and bureaucrats; prison corporations and employees and myriad other lesser special interests who have lobbied legislators to pass many laws that (they think) benefit them, but millions of others notice cause inconvenience, loss of time and money and a loss of liberty for all people. FIJA seeks to fully restore the citizen's knowledge of a right and power that has been hidden and usurped by judges for well over 100 years. Actually some judges have always tried to usurp the jury's role. Some government employees lust for power and control and want to be the master, when they are only the servant of the people. Does anyone need a source on that??

How knowledgeable are you on the nullification issue - honestly? Have you studied the history of trial by jury (England and USA)? Have you read all the many quotations extant supporting it? How many articles and essays have you read? How much thought have you given to it? Have you written articles on the subject? Are you from the United States or from another country that has trial by citizen jurors? Do you really know what you are talking about or are you simply reacting as sort of a POV "thought police". We hope you will learn about this issue and think about it -- deeply, whether you are from the US or not. It is extremely important as it is a major key to better government.

Speaking personally here, I am new to Wiki and am attempting to learn the culture. So I (and others affiliated with FIJA, who are knowledgable on this issue) ask for your help in communicating in a way that is more useful to you. If you have a problem with the language, please make your comments and suggestions as specific as possible - going beyond Wiki jargon. If we need to provide links we are willing and eager to do that. But we do not feel a strong need to list all the disinformation of the US legal establishment in the text here. There isn't space for it! I will be linking to that shortly in the form of a Q and A link. We want this page to be as useful and educational as possible.

Please remember that what you call POV or even bias, MAY be facts with which you are unfamiliar or that make you uncomfortable. (No one likes facing the fact that they have been duped or tricked.) The other side on this debate is the very definition of bias and sophistry and that is being charitable. Yet their opinions and fictions are promulgated to millions at taxpayer expense and accepted as established facts by the uninformed. FIJA will tell you the truth as best as we are humanly able. Thank you. Dwight Callaway

Thank you Dwight. I don't think anyone would fault the Red Cross for telling people about natural disasters and their effects on humans. Nor do I think anyone would fault Amnesty International for describing the conditions they find around the world and their remediation or proposed solutions to restore, preserve and protect human rights. What we try to do is much the same. But, yes, we want to know if anyone has questions -- especially questions -- with any of the postings here on wikipedia or on our web site. Thank you for helping us to better communicate our message to everyone. Please ask questions, and we will try our best to answer them. Some one changed the page to include the phrass about the great cost to taxpayers: actually, the prison system in the US is largely privatized, and not only "rents" prisoners to corporations for very low-wage labour, but also trades the stock in the se private prisons on the exchange. Sadly, not only are taxpayers burdened, but families and communities are torn apart when nonviolent people are sent to prison for victimless crimes. IMJ Iloilo M. Jones

SteveG - Not arguing that the organisation is an advocacy group, but rather I'm arguing that the article as it was presented the organisations opinions as a statement of fact, starkly in contrast to the policies on neutral points of view. The article should state the views of the organisation, and make it clear contextually that these are just the opinions and not a fact. This would involve the derrivation of the text to reflect the correct means of expression. If I believe that Satan is ruler supreme, the SteveG article should read that I hold the controversial view that Satan is ruler supreme, and not, as with this article (in a like-for-like comparison) that Satan *is* ruler-supreme.

[edit] NPOV

I cleaned up a lot of the POV problems here. We can't write things like "every juror must know...", "No juror should feel...", "Every defendant deserves...", "judges are morally required...", etc. These are all value judgments. It's fine to attribute these opinions to FIJA, but Wikipedia shouldn't present these 'shoulds' and 'musts' as if they are facts. Rhobite 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the time to add several US Supreme Court citations and other source-verified quotes to this page, and will add more as time allows. It is obvious to me that some of the people editing and commenting on this page are unaware of US Law and the language of the US Constitution. Iloilo M. Jones

What do John Jay's beliefs have to do with FIJA? This article isn't a debate about whether jury nullification is constitutional. A collection of cherrypicked quotes does not prove that jury nullification is what the founders intended, nor is it appropriate in a neutral encyclopedia article. Please stick to the task of describing FIJA's beliefs and activities. If you have information about the constitutiality of jury nullification, please contribute to the jury nullification article. Thanks. Rhobite 18:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many statements that someone not associated with our organizations has written about what FIJA believes: FIJA is an organization and has no beliefs or opinions. Some of the people who work here have beliefs and opinions, but FIJA does not. When I tried to add Supreme Court citations and quotes to further verify our work, they were removed. Obviously, someone else wants to write about who we are and what we do, and is editing this page for and from their bias, so I will let them have their way with the information on this page. I, as Executive Director of FIJA and AJI, an early and still active worker, and constitutional scholar and former law teacher, disclaim all content of this page because it is edited by those who are ignorant of the organization, the foundation of our work, or the legal underpinnings of our efforts. Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director, Fully Informed Jury Association and AMerican Jury Institute. January 3, 2006 Helena, Montana

It would be helpful if you could point out specific statements in the article which are inaccurate, and provide sources for your corrections. It is not helpful for you to edit this article to say that FIJA "disavows" the content of the article. Rhobite 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite, we here at FIJA/AJI have absolutely no control over what people write here, and for us to take the time to continually correct, attempt to add citations which are subsequently deleted, or try to maintain a semblance of factuality on this obscure little site is beyond the time and manpower capabilities of our office. Thus, it is most certainly well-advised for us to disavow the site and its contents rather than, by our silence, be a party to misleading people who wish to gather knowledge about our organization -- the validity of our positions, our mission and the reasons for the existence of FIJA and AJI -- or to cause those people to think that they are obtaining factual information from this entry. It is, in certain fact, most helpful to our credibility to disavow this article, since we have no way to monitor, constantly correct or update the misstatements and comments made on this site. Sincerely, Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director, Fully Informed Jury Association and American Jury Institute Helena Montana January 3, 2006