Ethical Dilemma

If the crime organization had all the jurors names then I'd tell the judge they need to get a new jury and I'd go home.

Juries in these sort of cases are kept anonymous to prevent jury tampering. The government/prosecution is not likely to offer puttingjurorss into the WitnessProtectionn Program. The ethicaldilemmaa you suggest would be more credible if the character is a witness essential to the prosecution's case.

Witnesses can also be kept anonymous, protected and hidden behind a screen inside a secure courtroom. In some cases, like the one you suggest, the Witness Protection Program would be offered. That generally consists of a new name and documents that create a believable legend. The witness is given some instruction and preparation for their new life. A new job and home are initially provided, but the witness has to make it on their own in their new lives. The government will keep an eye out for any suspicious occurences for awhile, but in a very low key manner. The Witness has to agree to some pretty stringent conditions, but they are all meant to prevent anyone from ever discovering their identity, or location. People inside the program agree not to have any contact with their old life, and to keep the government watchdogs fully informed of their doings. The new life provided, where possible and appropriate, designed not to penalize the protected person, but to guarantee their safety. I doubt that the government would support the witness in a life of idle luxury. The whole point is to remake the protected person as common place and unremarkable as possible.

I don't completely understand your alternatives. However, if I were an essential witness in a case against the black hats, I'd testify and go into the Program. I would regard that as my civic duty, and to prevent the criminal from harming others. To testify and retain one's old life is not only dangerous, but it is virtually impossible anyway. Anyone who has had 15 minutes of media fame will know what I'm talking about .. and the media seldom get their stories right. Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but no prosecutor wants to build an important case on a reluctant, frightened, or hostile witness.

I'd reject the offer, and find a way to get the truth out before they got me.

I'd fight the idealist fight, refusing to be intimidated by bullies, no matter how big they are.

..but I'm kinda stubborn like that !!

Well, if I stick to your story: that would be one huge mess of corruption!

I'd get myself off the jury however I had to. Wouldn't be a 'real' trial anyways, so I'd bunk myself out.

"Taliesin" - I'll show you the courtesy of replying to you.

If I 4t has waz a terrorist and could cause any serious problems I would probably support him. I will probably back him in anything that he did, and any thoughts that he might have...

My only question - Is why was he unsuccessful in his efforts to destroy the world?...

Could that possibly be because the world is more ADVANCED then that..,.

Anyway I am making deliberate "typos" at the mo'...

*only because you came alive on my computer.

"his followers are threatening a large-scale reprisal if he is convicted."......



I really hope we are not talking about a EVIL person....

That's the most important thing....