a man didn’t think he had any chance of getting off a murder charge,
so shortly before the jury retired, he bribed one of the jurors to find him guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.
The jury were out for over three days before eventually returning a verdict of manslaughter.
The relieved defendant sought out the bribed juror and said: “Thanks. How ever did you manage it?”
“It wasn’t easy,” admitted the juror. “All the others wanted to acquit you.”
Joke Poo: Bad Review
A struggling chef was desperate to get a good review in a notoriously critical foodie blog, so shortly before the reviewer arrived, he paid the busboy extra to ensure the reviewer only gave him a mediocre three-star review.
The reviewer stayed for what seemed like days, meticulously tasting every dish before finally posting his review. To the chef’s horror, the review was five stars, declaring it the best meal he’d ever had.
The frantic chef cornered the busboy and said: “What happened? I paid you to ensure a mediocre review!”
“It wasn’t easy,” admitted the busboy. “All the others wanted to give you zero stars.”
Alright, let’s dive into this joke!
Joke Dissection:
- Core Concept: A man, anticipating being wrongly convicted of murder, bribes a juror to get a manslaughter conviction instead. The humor arises from the ironic twist: the other jurors were actually leaning towards acquittal, making the bribe entirely unnecessary.
- Key Elements:
- Misjudgment of the Situation: The defendant completely misreads the jury’s sentiment.
- Bribery/Corruption: The act of bribery, although intended to help, becomes comically pointless.
- Irony: The juxtaposition of the defendant’s fear of being unfairly convicted of a higher charge versus the reality of a potential complete acquittal creates the punchline.
- Juror Stubbornness/Conflict: The joke subtly hints at the stubbornness and potential arguments within a jury room, even when the outcome seems straightforward.
Comedic Enrichment: The “Did You Know?” Route
“Did you know that jury deliberations in the United States are supposed to be kept strictly confidential? However, that hasn’t stopped some interesting leaks over the years. One juror, after a particularly tense deliberation, admitted that the entire discussion almost derailed because they couldn’t agree on whether ‘manslaughter’ was one word or two. Apparently, someone was adamant it should be ‘man’s laughter,’ leading to a lengthy debate about the merits of homicidal comedy. It really makes you wonder how many convictions are based on legal precedent versus grammatical confusion!”
Why this works:
- Builds on the Jury Theme: It expands on the idea of the jury process being unpredictable.
- Subverts Expectations: It highlights the possibility that jury discussions can be absurd, even frivolous, contrasting with the serious nature of the case.
- Echoes the Misunderstanding: Similar to the defendant in the original joke, the fictional juror misunderstands a basic term.
- Implies Chaos: Suggests the entire legal system could be fragile, susceptible to the whims of linguistic debates.
- Humorous Irony: Reinforces the idea that legal outcomes can be arbitrary.