The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: rich_t on April 08, 2008, 10:35:09 PM
-
I would like to discuss this topic with some fellow conservatives. I am new enough here that I think we can either agree or disagree without any bias caused by what we know or don't know of each other.
I'd like you all to answer the question as is, based on your current knowledge/pov, then peruse the link below and ask yourself the question again.
http://www.fija.org/
One quote from this site is:
When you serve as a juror, you can veto bad laws ~ or good laws if those laws are misapplied in the case before you.
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
I was only surprised that it took you this long to reply to this thread. :-)
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
That is one vote.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Do you have any opinions on the site I linked to on the topic?
If so would you care to discuss your opinions of the various aspects of jury nullification mentioned there?
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
That is one vote.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Do you have any opinions on the site I linked to on the topic?
If so would you care to discuss your opinions of the various aspects of jury nullification mentioned there?
I don't have to read anything. As long as you have thinking human beings on the jury, then their prejudices are on point.
In the same way that "term limits" somehow makes people smarter in who they elect ("Stop me before I re-elect the incumbent!") so,does jury nullification presume the jury pool are silly ninnies who can be influenced by emotional arguments.
I don't buy the premise, so I don't need to review the argument.
I know many Americans are easily swayed by emotion (witness the hussein tidal wave), but I will not allow any subjective tool to undermine the "jury of peers" no matter how silly those peers are.
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
I was only surprised that it took you this long to reply to this thread. :-)
Anything that will compromise an honest debate here about it in your opinion?
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
I was only surprised that it took you this long to reply to this thread. :-)
Anything that will compromise an honest debate here about it in your opinion?
it was an inside joke to FD. not that I have any clue what you just said.
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
That is one vote.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Do you have any opinions on the site I linked to on the topic?
If so would you care to discuss your opinions of the various aspects of jury nullification mentioned there?
I don't have to read anything. As long as you have thinking human beings on the jury, then their prejudices are on point.
In the same way that "term limits" somehow makes people smarter in who they elect ("Stop me before I re-elect the incumbent!") so,does jury nullification presume the jury pool are silly ninnies who can be influenced by emotional arguments.
I don't buy the premise, so I don't need to review the argument.
I know many Americans are easily swayed by emotion (witness the hussein tidal wave), but I will not allow any subjective tool to undermine the "jury of peers" no matter how silly those peers are.
Why don't you get off your "I know it all" high horse and take a look at the link I posted. It might not say what you presume it does.
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
That is one vote.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Do you have any opinions on the site I linked to on the topic?
If so would you care to discuss your opinions of the various aspects of jury nullification mentioned there?
I don't have to read anything. As long as you have thinking human beings on the jury, then their prejudices are on point.
In the same way that "term limits" somehow makes people smarter in who they elect ("Stop me before I re-elect the incumbent!") so,does jury nullification presume the jury pool are silly ninnies who can be influenced by emotional arguments.
I don't buy the premise, so I don't need to review the argument.
I know many Americans are easily swayed by emotion (witness the hussein tidal wave), but I will not allow any subjective tool to undermine the "jury of peers" no matter how silly those peers are.
Why don't you get off your "I know it all" high horse and take a look at the link I posted. It might not say what you presume it does.
I took a good look at the link you provided and I still don't think freedumb2003 is off base.
I keep running the OJ Simpson jury through my mind. Was that nullification or wanton disregard?
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
That is one vote.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Do you have any opinions on the site I linked to on the topic?
If so would you care to discuss your opinions of the various aspects of jury nullification mentioned there?
I don't have to read anything. As long as you have thinking human beings on the jury, then their prejudices are on point.
In the same way that "term limits" somehow makes people smarter in who they elect ("Stop me before I re-elect the incumbent!") so,does jury nullification presume the jury pool are silly ninnies who can be influenced by emotional arguments.
I don't buy the premise, so I don't need to review the argument.
I know many Americans are easily swayed by emotion (witness the hussein tidal wave), but I will not allow any subjective tool to undermine the "jury of peers" no matter how silly those peers are.
Why don't you get off your "I know it all" high horse and take a look at the link I posted. It might not say what you presume it does.
I took a good look at the link you provided and I still don't think freedumb2003 is off base.
I keep running the OJ Simpson jury through my mind. Was that nullification or wanton disregard?
Ok... fair question. I honestly don't know. I think the DA ****ed up and after 9 months sitting in a jury box the jury was "burnt out".
But this topic wasn't intended to be about OJ or Blake.
-
OK Lord Undies...
You claim to have looked....
What is your opinion of"
As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge...
US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)
-
There is no such thing.
I hate to use a 90s-ism, but a Jury is what it is. If they are collectively too stupid to fall for emotional appeals, well, that is what the USC calls for.
If you are "against" so-called Jury Nullification, then you are against elections or any other public duty which requires more than one person.
That is one vote.
What are you basing your opinion on?
Do you have any opinions on the site I linked to on the topic?
If so would you care to discuss your opinions of the various aspects of jury nullification mentioned there?
I don't have to read anything. As long as you have thinking human beings on the jury, then their prejudices are on point.
In the same way that "term limits" somehow makes people smarter in who they elect ("Stop me before I re-elect the incumbent!") so,does jury nullification presume the jury pool are silly ninnies who can be influenced by emotional arguments.
I don't buy the premise, so I don't need to review the argument.
I know many Americans are easily swayed by emotion (witness the hussein tidal wave), but I will not allow any subjective tool to undermine the "jury of peers" no matter how silly those peers are.
Why don't you get off your "I know it all" high horse and take a look at the link I posted. It might not say what you presume it does.
I took a good look at the link you provided and I still don't think freedumb2003 is off base.
I keep running the OJ Simpson jury through my mind. Was that nullification or wanton disregard?
Ok... fair question. I honestly don't know. I think the DA ****ed up and after 9 months sitting in a jury box the jury was "burnt out".
But this topic wasn't intended to be about OJ or Blake.
I can appreciate your Cecil B. DeMille characteristics. I too have started threads which I hoped would yield justification of my ideas. I have always been disappointed. It has been my experience that you cannot keep a thread so focused. Nonetheless, Good Luck!
That being said, it was not my intention to divert the thread into a discussion of a famous trial. My intent was to bring another point about your original point. I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
I will bid this thread farewell.
-
In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our
Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named
John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel
against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of
the Colony of New York forbid any publication without
prior government approval. Freedom of the press was
not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however,
defied this censorship and published articles strongly
critical of New York colonial rule.
When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger
admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued
that the truth of the facts stated justified their
publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is
not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel
more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow
true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And
since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of
publication, only a question of "law" remained.
Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for
the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find
the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the
jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law
and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
May I assume your problem comes in when a judge overrides the jury?
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
May I assume your problem comes in when a judge overrides the jury?
No. That assumption is wrong.
http://fija.org/
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
May I assume your problem comes in when a judge overrides the jury?
No. That assumption is wrong.
http://fija.org/
Ok, I have reviewed. I now cannot understand your point.
I said you were predictible. You may be trying - on purpose - to prove me wrong.
So, to bring this to a head, why not now present your point? What is your point? What do you want me to say?
-
You do realize I'm 87 years old. :innocent:
I am tired and going to bed.
I'll see you tomorrow, God Willing.
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
May I assume your problem comes in when a judge overrides the jury?
No. That assumption is wrong.
http://fija.org/
Ok, I have reviewed. I now cannot understand your point.
I said you were predictible. You may be trying - on purpose - to prove me wrong.
So, to bring this to a head, why not now present your point? What is your point? What do you want me to say?
I am not interested in making you say a damn thing.
Speak what you want to speak.
-
It is what it is. There are situations where it applies the brake of common sense on a prosecution run amok. There are also times when it acquits the plainly-guilty because of the prejudices of the jurors. The site you gave shows it only in a positive light, a foolishly-simplistic view. I found the 'Jury nullification as monkey-wrenching,' i.e. an activist tool, to be particularly foolhardy.
-
In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our
Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named
John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel
against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of
the Colony of New York forbid any publication without
prior government approval. Freedom of the press was
not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however,
defied this censorship and published articles strongly
critical of New York colonial rule.
When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger
admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued
that the truth of the facts stated justified their
publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is
not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel
more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow
true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And
since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of
publication, only a question of "law" remained.
Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for
the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find
the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the
jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law
and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.
....and it was the last time they were able to find twelve good men with commonsense for a jury. :-)
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
May I assume your problem comes in when a judge overrides the jury?
No. That assumption is wrong.
http://fija.org/
that's a bit unresponsive.
that was actually an attempt to engage you in a discussion (he must have been bored), and you reflexively,
and, I must say, somewhat mindlessly, threw the same link at him that you have been posting again and again.
if you want to discuss substance, then discuss substance. but posting the same link again and again and again
implies that you don't have the best handle on the subject at hand yourself .
this is just a little helpful advice. no charge.
-
It is what it is. There are situations where it applies the brake of common sense on a prosecution run amok. There are also times when it acquits the plainly-guilty because of the prejudices of the jurors. The site you gave shows it only in a positive light, a foolishly-simplistic view. I found the 'Jury nullification as monkey-wrenching,' i.e. an activist tool, to be particularly foolhardy.
Excellent point. Things like this cut both ways.
-
rich_t,
I think the reason you aren't getting the "discussion" you claim to want is your approach. Generally, when someone wants to engage in a REAL discussion they say here's my opinion and this is why I believe thus and so. Or, I can see both sides have merit and this is why. Links are provided as a way to help illustrate why one feels the way they do or to provide those facts one's opinions are based on. To simply pose a question and expect others to engage when you aren't willing to yourself seems rather arrogant to me. It's not just the topic that makes a discussion worthwhile but the willingness of it's participants (ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO START THE CONVERSATION) to risk exposing their own opinions to the critical thinking and judgment of one's peers (sort of like a jury). Your tactic I've only seen employed by those on the left. I'm sure there are those on the right that do it as well but I've never seen it. Whether you want to see how "uniformed" others are so you can dazzle them with your superior intellect or you want to make sure someone isn't "smarter" than you (thus shoot down the "wisdom" of your point of view) it's not conducive to the give and take required to discuss what shoes I should buy to go with my new purse, let alone something as important as juries.
Cindie
-
In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our
Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named
John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel
against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of
the Colony of New York forbid any publication without
prior government approval. Freedom of the press was
not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however,
defied this censorship and published articles strongly
critical of New York colonial rule.
When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger
admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued
that the truth of the facts stated justified their
publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is
not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel
more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow
true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And
since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of
publication, only a question of "law" remained.
Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for
the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find
the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the
jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law
and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.
....and it was the last time they were able to find twelve good men with commonsense for a jury. :-)
Sadly, that might be true. :-)
-
rich_t,
I think the reason you aren't getting the "discussion" you claim to want is your approach. Generally, when someone wants to engage in a REAL discussion they say here's my opinion and this is why I believe thus and so. Or, I can see both sides have merit and this is why. Links are provided as a way to help illustrate why one feels the way they do or to provide those facts one's opinions are based on. To simply pose a question and expect others to engage when you aren't willing to yourself seems rather arrogant to me. It's not just the topic that makes a discussion worthwhile but the willingness of it's participants (ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO START THE CONVERSATION) to risk exposing their own opinions to the critical thinking and judgment of one's peers (sort of like a jury). Your tactic I've only seen employed by those on the left. I'm sure there are those on the right that do it as well but I've never seen it. Whether you want to see how "uniformed" others are so you can dazzle them with your superior intellect or you want to make sure someone isn't "smarter" than you (thus shoot down the "wisdom" of your point of view) it's not conducive to the give and take required to discuss what shoes I should buy to go with my new purse, let alone something as important as juries.
Cindie
Correct you are. It was late, I was getting tired and I handled it poorly.
My apologies to all.
-
I regret it did not fall into your narrow vision of what this thread should be.
You don't have a clue as to what I wanted this thread to be.
I was looking for open and honest debate even if it disagreed with my own opinion.
But I won't blame you for not wanting to discuss issues that you have no interest in.
I suppose my farewell was short.
Yes, I have a clue. You are not some special case. You can be quite predictable.
You may be surprised, if you would put down the megaphone for a moment, that you and I agree, if indeed you agree juries are free to decide as they conclude.
Ok.. we agree on that.
May I assume your problem comes in when a judge overrides the jury?
No. That assumption is wrong.
http://fija.org/
that's a bit unresponsive.
that was actually an attempt to engage you in a discussion (he must have been bored), and you reflexively,
and, I must say, somewhat mindlessly, threw the same link at him that you have been posting again and again.
if you want to discuss substance, then discuss substance. but posting the same link again and again and again
implies that you don't have the best handle on the subject at hand yourself .
this is just a little helpful advice. no charge.
Sorry about that. I do apologize.
I think that jury nullification is something that citizens should employ as a safeguard against obviously unjust laws or the improper application of a just law. I fear we are rapidly reaching the point where juries are basically voting the way the court wants them to vote. That IMO is very dangerous to liberty and justice.
I feel we have not only the right, but also the responsibilty to judge the law as well as the accused. I feel that it is we, the soveriegn citzens, that are the final arbiters of the the law, not the courts or the lawyers. I think the founding fathers maybe had just this in mind when they set up our jury system the way they did.
Once again, I apologize to all for my previous behavior.