Jury Nullification

[delilahmused]

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

[rich_t]

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]

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.

[rich_t]

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.