|
|
#21
03-09-2007, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx). [/ QUOTE ] Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws? [/ QUOTE ] People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty. People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right? So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty. [/ QUOTE ] 1 hold-out = hung jury = mistrial. Defendant may not 'walk' as he may still be incarcerated but he is not found guilty. Prosecutor brings new case. All the defense needs now is 1 juror who doesn't like the drug laws. Another mistrial. Chaos ensues. 
|
|
#22
03-09-2007, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Would you prefer that the judge instruct the jury on the concept of jury nullification? [/ QUOTE ] Absolutely, yes. [ QUOTE ] Come on, really, what would YOU do if you were a judge who was presiding over jury selection? [/ QUOTE ] Precisely that. [/ QUOTE ] Judges who do that won't be judges for long. [/ QUOTE ] Better then to not be a judge than to be a judge supporting an unjust system. [/ QUOTE ] Hopefully the 4 remaining judges can handle the case load.
|
|
#23
03-09-2007, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
"should a jury convict you of receiving oral sodomy from your wife or girlfriend?"
I pray for it every night. What right do I, as a juror, have to make law? Certain laws might be ridiculous, in my judgment; but the way to change the law is through the legislative process, not to substitute my judgment on the law as I see fit. That said, you make a good case, I'm interested to see how others respond.
|
|
#24
03-09-2007, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx). [/ QUOTE ] Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws? [/ QUOTE ] People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty. People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right? So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty. [/ QUOTE ] 1 hold-out = hung jury = mistrial. Defendant may not 'walk' as he may still be incarcerated but he is not found guilty. Prosecutor brings new case. All the defense needs now is 1 juror who doesn't like the drug laws. Another mistrial. Chaos ensues. [/ QUOTE ] Chaos ensues? lol No, what ensues is that prosecutors, the courts, and the police get the feedback and alter the way they do business.
|
|
#25
03-09-2007, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Specific Question for Howard Beale and Andyfox...
...since you both appear to be against juries voting their consciences if their consciences conflict with the law.
Imagine you are on a jury in years past, trying the case of a runaway slave, caught while en route to hopeful freedom on the underground railroad chain of safe houses. Under the Fugitive Slave Law, you know that if you convict, the slave will be sent back to their master and will not reach freedom in the North. You also see that the prosecution has proved their case without any doubt. You also feel slavery is a great evil and is morally wrong and is an egregious an affront to human rights and dignity. DO YOU VOTE "GUILTY"? If you answer YES, then you are indeed consistent with your position of favoring "rule of law" over a juror's conscience. If you answer NO, then it appears that you do believe in jury nullification after all...it just has to reach your own personal threshhold of where you feel the law is totally unsupportable in the case presented. So which is it and what would you do?
|
|
#26
03-09-2007, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx). [/ QUOTE ] Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws? [/ QUOTE ] People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty. People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right? So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty. [/ QUOTE ] 1 hold-out = hung jury = mistrial. Defendant may not 'walk' as he may still be incarcerated but he is not found guilty. Prosecutor brings new case. All the defense needs now is 1 juror who doesn't like the drug laws. Another mistrial. Chaos ensues. [/ QUOTE ] If that's what happens, then good. Better chaos than unjust victimless crime laws enforced.
|
|
#27
03-09-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
Here are a couple others that believed in jury nullification:
Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794) "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence. "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." -------------
|
|
#28
03-09-2007, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
"should a jury convict you of receiving oral sodomy from your wife or girlfriend?" I pray for it every night. What right do I, as a juror, have to make law? Certain laws might be ridiculous, in my judgment; but the way to change the law is through the legislative process, not to substitute my judgment on the law as I see fit. That said, you make a good case, I'm interested to see how others respond. [/ QUOTE ] Because as part of a jury you are one of two entities in the U.S. that are not legally subservient to any other entity. The only other such entity is the U.S. Supreme Court. If only the U.S. Supreme Court were not legally subservient to any other entity, then only government would provide a check on government. The people are supposed to provide the ultimate check on government, and trial by jury is the only way to ensure this. Juries, and the U.S. Supreme Court, both hold a uniquely autonomous position in American legal system.
|
|
#29
03-09-2007, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And you expect what? That the jurors should not be asked if they will support the law that was passed by their own representatives? (yeah, yeah. I know). I don't support the anti-drug laws at all. If I get on a heroin smuggling case jury the court shouldn't know whether or not I'd vote guilty if the case is proved? Meanwhile jurors often ignore everything and do what they feel like, i.e. the OJ case. And the poster above mentioned the nit-wits who award tens of millions for injuries that are way beyond what a sane person would expect. Which is why plaintiff's lawyers forum shop to get the stupidest jurors that they can (like The Bronx). [/ QUOTE ] Uhh- isn't the point (idea behind) of the justice system that justice is served for the citizens? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trial by jury? That judges and prosecutors are subject to political pressure and juries are necessary to mitigate that pressure? Old laws, poorly written laws, Judges/prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves are all reasons to allow juries to make up their mind about the reasonableness of conducting the trial in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] You want the jury to legislate from the jury box? Have you considered that different juries will come up w/ different verdicts depending on their particular make-up? Why should one person spend 20 years behind bars for heroin smuggling and another walk because I'm on the jury and I don't like the drug laws? [/ QUOTE ] People do not 'walk' because 1 out of 12 jurors insists on voting not guilty when the other 11 insisit of voting guilty. People 'walk' when all 12 vote not guilty. You knew this, right? So if the 1 person who wants to vote not guilty can convince the other 11 to also vote not guilty, yes they should be deemed not guilty. [/ QUOTE ] 1 hold-out = hung jury = mistrial. Defendant may not 'walk' as he may still be incarcerated but he is not found guilty. Prosecutor brings new case. All the defense needs now is 1 juror who doesn't like the drug laws. Another mistrial. Chaos ensues. [/ QUOTE ] Chaos ensues? lol No, what ensues is that prosecutors, the courts, and the police get the feedback and alter the way they do business. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, sure. They're going to change the drug laws, the gambling laws, the prostitution laws and, best of all THE TAX LAWS! Can you imagine 'the people' realizing that they don't have to pay taxes because they can just acquit each other? Come to think of it..............
|
|
#30
03-09-2007, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Injustice of Rigged Juries: It\'s Routine
[ QUOTE ]
What right do I, as a juror, have to make law? [/ QUOTE ] As a citizen in a democracy it is supposed to be both your right and duty to be involved in making laws. The jury process is supposed to be a check to make sure that citizens do not essentially become powerless to legislators who word laws badly, or push laws through in times of panic, or to legislators of the past whose laws have sat dormant for decades but are still on the books because no one knows about arcane laws that were never repealed because they were never enforced. The US may be based upon a system of laws, but those laws must be written and interpreted and enforced by men and checks are necessary to ensure that the government is still run by for and of the people. [ QUOTE ] Certain laws might be ridiculous, in my judgment; but the way to change the law is through the legislative process [/ QUOTE ] And how often does it take someone convicted of an unjust law to bring it to light? The laws don't change simply because times change, there is a process involved. What happens to those charged in the interim while the legislature is out of session, what if the legislature has drifted from the will of the majority. Should we continue to convict people for 2, 4 or 6 years while proper adjustments are made through voting?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
