Jury nullification triumph!

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

No sir, you can go to the police station and file a complaint. Not charges. You are an idiot.

Filing a complaint is charging somebody with a criminal act, aka filing charges.

 

[TheBrain]

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

No sir, you can go to the police station and file a complaint. Not charges. You are an idiot.

Filing a complaint is charging somebody with a criminal act, aka filing charges.

It is not you simpleton. Filing charges is a LEGAL procedure that can ONLY be done by the prosecuting attorney's office.

 

[Ernie S.]

if he hadn't assaulted his wife, then the jury would not have had to find him guilty under the law. if they felt they had to engage in jury nullificaiton then his behavior was domestic violence and they let a batterer free.... which means the battering will increase in frequency and intensity.

if true, they violated their oath as jurors and should be held in contempt.

that said, i think it's a lie... the prosecutor doesn't instruct on the law except at the grand jury stage. at the trial stage, only a judge can instruct on the law.

Readling this thread it sure looks to me like the OP is advocating men being let off for spousal abuse via jury nullification (IE "the bitch deserved it".) Pretty sad.

Did you read the link? The "victim" testified that he barely touched her and it was no big dea. The police officer, who we can assume, was not present to witness the alleged kick, testified that in her opinion, the kick constituted assault.

 

[George Costanza]

What part of this are you not getting? Police charge people all the time. Prosecutors then decide whether or not to indict them Police cannot arrest you unless they charge you with something, and they can get warrants from judges, do prosecutor involved until Monday morning when the case file shows up in the inbox. Police do not have the luxury of always consulting with a DA to determine if they should charge someone, or what charges are appropriate. That is why charges are sometimes dropped when the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence.

In domestic violence cases the police are often required by law to arrest someone every single time they respond. This is the law in at least 21 states. The police actually have no discretion, even if they believe that nothing was happening, and they only show up because a neighbor called. On top of that, they are conditioned to believe that the man is always the aggressor. Some laws actually assume that the man is the guilty party, which could make prosecutions of DV between lesbians impossible.

What are the State Laws that Mandate Arrest for DV Assault? » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Of course there is more to the story, I already pointed that out earlier in the thread. The rest of the story is the law is designed to "protect the victim," even if there is no victim.

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

You cannot be arrested unless you are charged with something. Period. If you are not charged you are only being detained.

Let me straighten this out for both of you. Police do not file criminal charges. Only District Attorneys file charges. Police arrest someone on a charge (or charges), but that is not the same thing as FILING charges. Again - only DA's actually file the charges.

In actual practice, here's the way it works. The police arrest someone. They prepare what is called an arrest report, which contains their version of the facts and the charges they think are appropriate. They then take the case to a deputy District Attorney in the DA's office known as the filing deputy. His/her only job is sifting through police reports, talking to the arresting officers and making the final decision as to exactly what charges will be filed. Then he/she files those charges.

And that's the way it works.

Your statement that you cannot be arrested unless you are charged with something is technically correct, but it does not mean that police file charges. If the police are going to arrest a suspect, the suspect is entitled to be told why he is being arrested, i.e., upon what "charge" he is being arrested. But this takes place in the field, and is only the police officer's best estimation of the charge that he thinks is appropriate and, most importantly, what he thinks the DA will ultimately file when he takes his case to the DA. Once again - only DA's file charges.

 

[TheBrain]

Once again, you are INCORRECT. Police do not charge anyone. Being charged with a crime is a legality that is done by the prosecuting attorney, not the police. Being detained, even to the point of being placed in handcuffs does not mean you have been charged with anything. It simply means you have been arrested. You CAN be arrested without being charged. You can also be arrested via a prosecuting attorney filing charges against you and having the police serve a warrant for your arrest. you can NOT be charged for a crime by a police officer. PERIOD.

You are right, in most states someone is being taken in when police are called out on a domestic violence call, but just because they are taken in doesn't mean they are being charged with a crime. In fact often times the police will arrest someone, and not just for DV cases, and a prosecuting attorney will decide that there is no evidence that a crime was committed so no one gets charged with anything. So how does that happen, if the police are the ones who charge people with crimes? Oh yeah, they don't.

I can walk down to the police station and file charges, so can you. That is not the decision of the prosecutor, his decision is whether to take the case to trial.

police file charges - Google Search

You cannot be arrested unless you are charged with something. Period. If you are not charged you are only being detained.

Let me straighten this out for both of you. Police do not file criminal charges. Only District Attorneys file charges. Police arrest someone on a charge (or charges), but that is not the same thing as FILING charges. Again - only DA's actually file the charges.

In actual practice, here's the way it works. The police arrest someone. They prepare what is called an arrest report, which contains their version of the facts and the charges they think are appropriate. They then take the case to a deputy District Attorney in the DA's office known as the filing deputy. His/her only job is sifting through police reports, talking to the arresting officers and making the final decision as to exactly what charges will be filed. Then he/she files those charges.

And that's the way it works.

Your statement that you cannot be arrested unless you are charged with something is technically correct, but it does not mean that police file charges. If the police are going to arrest a suspect, the suspect is entitled to be told why he is being arrested, i.e., upon what "charge" he is being arrested. But this takes place in the field, and is only the police officer's best estimation of the charge that he thinks is appropriate and, most importantly, what he thinks the DA will ultimately file when he takes his case to the DA. Once again - only DA's file charges.

In other words, I was correct from the word go. Thank you very much.

 

[jillian]

And "government excess" is itself an ill-defined term. What you and I might on some occasion consider to be a demonstration of government excess, two other perfectly reasonable people might find to be entirely within the rational authority and power of the government. Again, it depends a lot on the case and a lot on our own (somewhat subjective) definitions.

When a jury is permitted to decide whether they like a particular law, you can end up with anything BUT justice. If a jury in the deep South in the early days of the so-called "Civil Rights Movement" considered racial equality to be obscene and unjust, then the outcome of a jury nullification might be anything BUT just.

i just thought i'd note, fwiw, that i am in total agreement with the above

not something that happens very often.

that is all...

 

[frazzledgear]

Didn't the prosecutor make it clear to the jury that kicking a woman was a crime? If he didn't he needs to go back to law school or work for the ACLU.

The way the law was specifically written technically made it a "crime" but let's get real -what he did was push her butt with his bare foot when she went to grab the remote -and that really pissed her off. Pissing off your wife is NOT a crime which is why all the jury members agreed he technically committed the "crime" that was defined in court -but actually committed no act worthy of conviction in the process. The idea of arresting someone, convicting them of a crime of violence and sending them to JAIL for this kind of act is ridiculous -and only clogs up our already clogged up courtrooms and jails with BULLSHIT STUFF like this!

But in MY state, this would NOT be battery -because battery is NOT defined in this way. It is defined PROPERLY as touching someone with your hands, feet or any other part of your body with the SPECIFIC intent of causing bodily harm even if no or only slight bodily harm resulted. If the intent is not there -neither is the crime. Which means people who trip and fall and land on you, breaking your arm in the process -will never be charged with the crime of battery because they didn't intend to cause you harm in the first place. This man was NOT trying to cause her bodily harm -his intent was to push her away from the remote so she couldn't grab it. Maybe his intent was even to do it in a humiliating way or in a way she would feel insulted by pushing her on the butt instead of pushing her hand away. But that still isn't an intent to cause bodily harm. But apparently your reaction is WOW -GET THE MAJOR CRIME UNIT OUT ON THIS ONE!

You must not have read the entire story -the entire jury unanimously agreed that the prosecutor had proved the man committed the act as it was defined under their law. The prosecutor did his job. You seem to think it is the job of the jury to enforce the law as it is written -but WRONG. It is the cops' job to enforce the law. The cops enforced this law, the prosecutor's job is to seek the conviction of those who violate the law as it is written and the prosecutor did that. It is the job of the judge to interpret the law for the jury -which he did. None of that is the job of the jury. It is the job of juries to render a JUST VERDICT with regard to that law. THAT is their PRIMARY DUTY and sometimes it means a jury nullification to do it. It is NOT their job to enforce the law or interpret the law -but to render a JUST VERDICT with regard to that law. Pushing a woman with his bare foot on the ass in their mutual squabble over a remote control that not only did not cause any injury but was not intended to cause injury - is NOT a crime worthy of conviction of a violent act to anyone but a nutjob. And only a nutjob would believe someone should be sent to jail for it either. Conviction of battery carries a potential jail sentence. A conviction for a violent act carries lifelong consequences as well and makes it much more difficult for someone to find work. Some crimes are so serious that is an appropriate consequence but it is totally inappropriate here.

So you actually side with the prosecutor who refused to drop charges even knowing the real story here and was quite willing to see this guy punished with lifelong consequences for not letting his loudmouth, fat assed bitching wife (as she admits she had been doing to him all day long) grab the remote -even to the point it interferes with the ability to even support himself? That amounts to "justice" in your world, does it? Fortunately the jury disagreed and rendered a JUST VERDICT -as is THEIR job!

Had this man moved to my state his conviction would have traveled with him showing up as having been convicted of a violent crime - even though in my state he committed no crime at all and this would never have seen the inside of any courtroom. Every time cops would want to look for likely suspects in a violent crime occurring anywhere near him, this guy's name would pop up -wasting the time of police who would have to sift through the whole thing again only to find out his "violent" crime was pushing his loudmouth wife in the butt with his bare foot trying to prevent her from grabbing the fucking remote and it really pissed her off!

More and more people fear an overburdened legal system that is becoming increasingly incapable of rendering justice instead of merely fulfilling some "technical-ese" that only renders travesty when it is supposed to render justice. Convicting someone of a violent crime, sending him to jail, forced to deal with the lifelong consequences for that conviction for what was in reality pissing off his wife with a rude shove to the ass with his bare foot trying to keep her from grabbing the remote -is NOT justice to anyone except nutjobs.

 

[George Costanza]

Didn't the prosecutor make it clear to the jury that kicking a woman was a crime? If he didn't he needs to go back to law school or work for the ACLU.

I take it your are implying that the ACLU is populated by stupid lawyers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Don't make an idiot out of yourself.

 

[Liability]

I think you misunderstand the term justice. The law does not define justice, and only rarely embodies it. Justice is about being right and fair, not following laws that were laid down even when they are wrong. It was not just to send escaped slaves back to their owners, but it was completely legal. It is not just to send a person who defends his family from attack to prison, yet it happens.

If a trial is about justice like you are arguing it is, then the jury must also decide if the law is right as it is being applied. Judges and prosecutors do not do that, they only decide if the law, as they interpret it, can be used to achieve the ends they desire. That is why people can actually be charged with, and convicted of, hacking even if they have permission to use a computer and access files on it. The criminal justice system is about money, justifying its existence, and devouring more resources, it is not about justice.

Jury nullification is the onlu hope that normal people have when confronted with government excess.

I have a firm grasp on the meaning of the term justice.

Justice has more than one meaning and the varying meanings depend on context,

Nevertheless, there are some very common denominators.

Something which is unjust cannot be "justice."

And "government excess" is itself an ill-defined term. What you and I might on some occasion consider to be a demonstration of government excess, two other perfectly reasonable people might find to be entirely within the rational authority and power of the government. Again, it depends a lot on the case and a lot on our own (somewhat subjective) definitions.

When a jury is permitted to decide whether they like a particular law, you can end up with anything BUT justice. If a jury in the deep South in the early days of the so-called "Civil Rights Movement" considered racial equality to be obscene and unjust, then the outcome of a jury nullification might be anything BUT just.

Never said it couldn't. That does not make my argument invalid though, the only defense the common man has against government excess is the right to a trial by jury. That is why it is written into the Bill of Rights. The fact that the courts and the government have been chipping away at that right because they do not trust us should concern everyone. I realize that it doesn't, but it should.

In the first place, I don't recall saying (or even implying) that your main argument was "invalid."

Secondly, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers is NOT the "only" defense a common guy has against government excess. It is a hugely important one. But it is not the "only" one.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean when you say tht the government and the courts have been "chipping away" at it. When? How? By saying that a trial jury is not authorized to nullify a law duly enacted by the representatives of the People in the process of law making spelled out in our Constitution? That's not a chipping away of anything. Frankly, with the possibility of some exceptions, I submit we are all better off without giving a jury the explicit "authority" to nullify OUR laws.

Here's a counter example. It involves rape law and marriage. It is now a bit dated (at least in NY) but it can make the point anyway:

It used to be that no male could be convicted of raping his wife (either because a woman was deemed, legally, to be something like chattel OR because her "consent" was implied by virtue of having married the guy OR because the law recognized the legal fiction that a marriage made man and wife "one" -- and one cannot rape one's self). Then the law changed. And now, if a man forces himself sexually on his wife against her will, he can be charged with and convicted of rape even if they are married.

But what if the jury doesn't LIKE this new development in our law? Is it "ok" for a jury to nullify it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a firm grasp on the meaning of the term justice.

Justice has more than one meaning and the varying meanings depend on context,

Nevertheless, there are some very common denominators.

Something which is unjust cannot be "justice."

And "government excess" is itself an ill-defined term. What you and I might on some occasion consider to be a demonstration of government excess, two other perfectly reasonable people might find to be entirely within the rational authority and power of the government. Again, it depends a lot on the case and a lot on our own (somewhat subjective) definitions.

When a jury is permitted to decide whether they like a particular law, you can end up with anything BUT justice. If a jury in the deep South in the early days of the so-called "Civil Rights Movement" considered racial equality to be obscene and unjust, then the outcome of a jury nullification might be anything BUT just.

Never said it couldn't. That does not make my argument invalid though, the only defense the common man has against government excess is the right to a trial by jury. That is why it is written into the Bill of Rights. The fact that the courts and the government have been chipping away at that right because they do not trust us should concern everyone. I realize that it doesn't, but it should.

In the first place, I don't recall saying (or even implying) that your main argument was "invalid."

Secondly, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers is NOT the "only" defense a common guy has against government excess. It is a hugely important one. But it is not the "only" one.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean when you say tht the government and the courts have been "chipping away" at it. When? How? By saying that a trial jury is not authorized to nullify a law duly enacted by the representatives of the People in the process of law making spelled out in our Constitution? That's not a chipping away of anything. Frankly, with the possibility of some exceptions, I submit we are all better off without giving a jury the explicit "authority" to nullify OUR laws.

Here's a counter example. It involves rape law and marriage. It is now a bit dated (at least in NY) but it can make the point anyway:

It used to be that no male could be convicted of raping his wife (either because a woman was deemed, legally, to be something like chattel OR because her "consent" was implied by virtue of having married the guy OR because the law recognized the legal fiction that a marriage made man and wife "one" -- and one cannot rape one's self). Then the law changed. And now, if a man forces himself sexually on his wife against her will, he can be charged with and convicted of rape even if they are married.

But what if the jury doesn't LIKE this new development in our law? Is it "ok" for a jury to nullify it?

Why are you taking this personally? I did not say that you implied my argument was wrong. I was merely expressing my agreement with your point, and then arguing mine.

The jury is the only defense the common man has against government excess because it is the only one where the common man is actually involved. All the other avenues of redress you are thinking of rely on the government to change itself. Even voting for a candidate is effectively trusting another man to give up power once he has it, and that rarely happens. Once people have power they tend to hold onto it, even if their intentions are good, because they think they can use that power to accomplish good.

Juries are our only defense against that short of armed rebellion against the government. While the last is an avenue that is open to everyone, we have plenty of present day examples to prove it is not very effective. It worked in the past because the government, despite the fact that it had armies, did not have a technical advantage over its citizens.

As for what I am talking about, a jury used to be trusted not just to judge the facts, but to actually judge the law. The very first jury trial held before the Supreme Court (yes, they actually used to have jury trials) acknowledged this in the instructions it handed down. Today we are told that juries do not have the right to judge the law, they are required to follow it as they are instructed by the judge.

It is absurd to tell someone that they can sift through evidence about DNA, ballistics, and forensic reconstruction of a crime scene, understand science that they are not educated about, determine which witnesses are telling the truth, and send people to their death, but they are incapable of figuring out if a law is being applied morally. If a law is so outrageous that you feel you should not apply it, you should have that choice.

Will that result in guilty people going free? Yes. I just happen to think the alternative is worse. Under the present system we have people going to jail for making bank deposits,

Deposit the "Wrong" Amount of Cash in Your Bank, Go to Jail - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Or for importing and selling flowers.

Federal SWAT Raid Over . . . Orchids. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[Liability]

Never said it couldn't. That does not make my argument invalid though, the only defense the common man has against government excess is the right to a trial by jury. That is why it is written into the Bill of Rights. The fact that the courts and the government have been chipping away at that right because they do not trust us should concern everyone. I realize that it doesn't, but it should.

In the first place, I don't recall saying (or even implying) that your main argument was "invalid."

Secondly, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers is NOT the "only" defense a common guy has against government excess. It is a hugely important one. But it is not the "only" one.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean when you say tht the government and the courts have been "chipping away" at it. When? How? By saying that a trial jury is not authorized to nullify a law duly enacted by the representatives of the People in the process of law making spelled out in our Constitution? That's not a chipping away of anything. Frankly, with the possibility of some exceptions, I submit we are all better off without giving a jury the explicit "authority" to nullify OUR laws.

Here's a counter example. It involves rape law and marriage. It is now a bit dated (at least in NY) but it can make the point anyway:

It used to be that no male could be convicted of raping his wife (either because a woman was deemed, legally, to be something like chattel OR because her "consent" was implied by virtue of having married the guy OR because the law recognized the legal fiction that a marriage made man and wife "one" -- and one cannot rape one's self). Then the law changed. And now, if a man forces himself sexually on his wife against her will, he can be charged with and convicted of rape even if they are married.

But what if the jury doesn't LIKE this new development in our law? Is it "ok" for a jury to nullify it?

Why are you taking this personally? I did not say that you implied my argument was wrong. I was merely expressing my agreement with your point, and then arguing mine.

The jury is the only defense the common man has against government excess because it is the only one where the common man is actually involved. All the other avenues of redress you are thinking of rely on the government to change itself. Even voting for a candidate is effectively trusting another man to give up power once he has it, and that rarely happens. Once people have power they tend to hold onto it, even if their intentions are good, because they think they can use that power to accomplish good.

Juries are our only defense against that short of armed rebellion against the government. While the last is an avenue that is open to everyone, we have plenty of present day examples to prove it is not very effective. It worked in the past because the government, despite the fact that it had armies, did not have a technical advantage over its citizens.

As for what I am talking about, a jury used to be trusted not just to judge the facts, but to actually judge the law. The very first jury trial held before the Supreme Court (yes, they actually used to have jury trials) acknowledged this in the instructions it handed down. Today we are told that juries do not have the right to judge the law, they are required to follow it as they are instructed by the judge.

It is absurd to tell someone that they can sift through evidence about DNA, ballistics, and forensic reconstruction of a crime scene, understand science that they are not educated about, determine which witnesses are telling the truth, and send people to their death, but they are incapable of figuring out if a law is being applied morally. If a law is so outrageous that you feel you should not apply it, you should have that choice.

Will that result in guilty people going free? Yes. I just happen to think the alternative is worse. Under the present system we have people going to jail for making bank deposits,

Deposit the "Wrong" Amount of Cash in Your Bank, Go to Jail - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Or for importing and selling flowers.

Federal SWAT Raid Over . . . Orchids. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

I haven't taken anything personally. I have merely expressed my point of view which disagrees with some of what you've said.

Lighten up, Francis.

Jury nullification can be abused just as it can be resorted to (surreptitiously) for really worthwhile reasons. It is a dangerous tool.

We have established rules for making laws and they are subject to being challenged if they transgress our over-arching law -- the Constitution. But I don't want a jury nullifying a law that is designed to correct some bad shit just because they happen to be stuck on the old ways. That kind of behavior undermines "justice" sometimes.

If there is a contest between A and B, you can't be FAIR to A by being unfair to B. You can assist A, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the first place, I don't recall saying (or even implying) that your main argument was "invalid."

Secondly, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers is NOT the "only" defense a common guy has against government excess. It is a hugely important one. But it is not the "only" one.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean when you say tht the government and the courts have been "chipping away" at it. When? How? By saying that a trial jury is not authorized to nullify a law duly enacted by the representatives of the People in the process of law making spelled out in our Constitution? That's not a chipping away of anything. Frankly, with the possibility of some exceptions, I submit we are all better off without giving a jury the explicit "authority" to nullify OUR laws.

Here's a counter example. It involves rape law and marriage. It is now a bit dated (at least in NY) but it can make the point anyway:

It used to be that no male could be convicted of raping his wife (either because a woman was deemed, legally, to be something like chattel OR because her "consent" was implied by virtue of having married the guy OR because the law recognized the legal fiction that a marriage made man and wife "one" -- and one cannot rape one's self). Then the law changed. And now, if a man forces himself sexually on his wife against her will, he can be charged with and convicted of rape even if they are married.

But what if the jury doesn't LIKE this new development in our law? Is it "ok" for a jury to nullify it?

Why are you taking this personally? I did not say that you implied my argument was wrong. I was merely expressing my agreement with your point, and then arguing mine.

The jury is the only defense the common man has against government excess because it is the only one where the common man is actually involved. All the other avenues of redress you are thinking of rely on the government to change itself. Even voting for a candidate is effectively trusting another man to give up power once he has it, and that rarely happens. Once people have power they tend to hold onto it, even if their intentions are good, because they think they can use that power to accomplish good.

Juries are our only defense against that short of armed rebellion against the government. While the last is an avenue that is open to everyone, we have plenty of present day examples to prove it is not very effective. It worked in the past because the government, despite the fact that it had armies, did not have a technical advantage over its citizens.

As for what I am talking about, a jury used to be trusted not just to judge the facts, but to actually judge the law. The very first jury trial held before the Supreme Court (yes, they actually used to have jury trials) acknowledged this in the instructions it handed down. Today we are told that juries do not have the right to judge the law, they are required to follow it as they are instructed by the judge.

It is absurd to tell someone that they can sift through evidence about DNA, ballistics, and forensic reconstruction of a crime scene, understand science that they are not educated about, determine which witnesses are telling the truth, and send people to their death, but they are incapable of figuring out if a law is being applied morally. If a law is so outrageous that you feel you should not apply it, you should have that choice.

Will that result in guilty people going free? Yes. I just happen to think the alternative is worse. Under the present system we have people going to jail for making bank deposits,

Deposit the "Wrong" Amount of Cash in Your Bank, Go to Jail - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Or for importing and selling flowers.

Federal SWAT Raid Over . . . Orchids. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

I haven't taken anything personally. I have merely expressed my point of view which disagrees with some of what you've said.

Lighten up, Francis.

Jury nullification can be abused just as it can be resorted to (surreptitiously) for really worthwhile reasons. It is a dangerous tool.

We have established rules for making laws and they are subject to being challenged if they transgress our over-arching law -- the Constitution. But I don't want a jury nullifying a law that is designed to correct some bad shit just because they happen to be stuck on the old ways. That kind of behavior undermines "justice" sometimes.

If there is a contest between A and B, you can't be FAIR to A by being unfair to B. You can assist A, but that's not the same thing.

Being fair is over rated.

 

[Liability]

Why are you taking this personally? I did not say that you implied my argument was wrong. I was merely expressing my agreement with your point, and then arguing mine.

The jury is the only defense the common man has against government excess because it is the only one where the common man is actually involved. All the other avenues of redress you are thinking of rely on the government to change itself. Even voting for a candidate is effectively trusting another man to give up power once he has it, and that rarely happens. Once people have power they tend to hold onto it, even if their intentions are good, because they think they can use that power to accomplish good.

Juries are our only defense against that short of armed rebellion against the government. While the last is an avenue that is open to everyone, we have plenty of present day examples to prove it is not very effective. It worked in the past because the government, despite the fact that it had armies, did not have a technical advantage over its citizens.

As for what I am talking about, a jury used to be trusted not just to judge the facts, but to actually judge the law. The very first jury trial held before the Supreme Court (yes, they actually used to have jury trials) acknowledged this in the instructions it handed down. Today we are told that juries do not have the right to judge the law, they are required to follow it as they are instructed by the judge.

It is absurd to tell someone that they can sift through evidence about DNA, ballistics, and forensic reconstruction of a crime scene, understand science that they are not educated about, determine which witnesses are telling the truth, and send people to their death, but they are incapable of figuring out if a law is being applied morally. If a law is so outrageous that you feel you should not apply it, you should have that choice.

Will that result in guilty people going free? Yes. I just happen to think the alternative is worse. Under the present system we have people going to jail for making bank deposits,

Deposit the "Wrong" Amount of Cash in Your Bank, Go to Jail - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Or for importing and selling flowers.

Federal SWAT Raid Over . . . Orchids. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

I haven't taken anything personally. I have merely expressed my point of view which disagrees with some of what you've said.

Lighten up, Francis.

Jury nullification can be abused just as it can be resorted to (surreptitiously) for really worthwhile reasons. It is a dangerous tool.

We have established rules for making laws and they are subject to being challenged if they transgress our over-arching law -- the Constitution. But I don't want a jury nullifying a law that is designed to correct some bad shit just because they happen to be stuck on the old ways. That kind of behavior undermines "justice" sometimes.

If there is a contest between A and B, you can't be FAIR to A by being unfair to B. You can assist A, but that's not the same thing.

Being fair is over rated.

no. It isn't.