Post #51,763
9/14/02 5:51:56 PM
|
Jury Nullification
Now, Ben Tilly is responsible for me losing several hours to the research of a topic he brought up in another thread...
[link|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22jury+nullification%22|Jury Nullification by Google]
Worth reading up on, and I'd like to see what people think of it here.
I put this topic here because I think it transcends politics, and we don't have a Law forum.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #51,764
9/14/02 6:31:33 PM
|
Sorry, I thought you knew about it
I did not intend to distract you with the topic.
As for its importance, virtually the whole of the US Constitution is meant to create the necessary evil of a government and then hamstring it with as many protections as they could get that while it would work, it would not be able to establish a tyranny. One part of that was ensuring the right to trial by jury - which protected against governments because juries could choose to ignore unfair laws. (And their rulings of "Not Guilty!" cannot be readily overturned by a judge.)
The history of the US since has shown the tendancy of the government to seek to aquire the powers that the Constitution tried to block. Whether it does so by appointing judges who interpret the Commerce Clause very generously (thanks FDR), or by suing your goods to get around protections against search and seizure, or by keeping juries from knowing about the right to jury nullification, there is ever-present pressure to achieve what the Constitution is intended to block.
Whether or not this is a good thing is a big can of worms. I don't mean to raise that. But that it has happened is a simple fact. Interest groups generally try to increase their influence, and the government has proved to be no exception to this rule.
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #51,832
9/15/02 6:40:40 PM
|
Another problem is overzealous prosecutors
(of all political strips) who are more concerned with their conviction rate than justice.
Jurys who think for themselves could help with this problem.
Tony
|
Post #51,799
9/15/02 10:43:34 AM
|
You mind if I submit that link over at Fark?
Might raise the level of discourse over there for a short while.
Thanks for posting this. A topic to be remembered.
"Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought."
-Terry Pratchett
|
Post #51,800
9/15/02 10:47:16 AM
|
Go for it.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #51,801
9/15/02 11:07:50 AM
|
Done. Now let's see if it gets accepted.
"Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought."
-Terry Pratchett
|
Post #51,833
9/15/02 6:54:11 PM
|
Jury nullfication is both good and bad
good in a case where following the law would do grave injustice, bad because of local prejuidice would let perpetrators walk. Example would be the OJay case and many whites indicted for murdering blacks but could not be convicted in certain courts. The worse thing that could happen is get someone like me on a Grand Jury where the Jurors (if they only new) could run hogwild on any subject they wanted. We would indict a ham sandwhich that both lincoln and booth took a bite out of. :)
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #51,879
9/16/02 9:20:55 AM
|
Box, you stand a snowball's chance...
...of finding yourself on any jury. People practiced in the art of deductive reasoning are personnae non gratia[sic?] on juries; if you can't be easily swayed by emotionalism, you're not wanted (by either side).
jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #51,891
9/16/02 11:03:03 AM
|
Hey, you just insulted my wife! ;-)
She was on a jury a bit back in a wrongful death suit against the local prison system. She was quite surprised that she was chosen, considering that her brother-in-law works in the prison where the death occurred.
She voted with the law to accquit the individual, (they followed the procedures) but the jury as a whole agreed that there were serious flaws and lapses in the county's codes, including her. Unfortunately, that wasn't on their trial...
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #51,894
9/16/02 11:13:24 AM
|
Hey...miracles happen...
Sorry, didn't mean to insult you, your wife or anyone remotely associated with IWETHEY.
I'm off to build a snow fort....
jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #51,901
9/16/02 12:20:07 PM
|
Twas a joke... :-)
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #51,882
9/16/02 9:53:46 AM
|
Can't be helped, but better than the alternative
good in a case where following the law would do grave injustice, bad because of local prejuidice would let perpetrators walk. If society believes that something is "wrong" they will convict someone who does it. That's why defense attorneys in rape cases still demonize the complainant's sex life. Since society thinks promiscuity is "wrong" they will vote against her. But IMO no law should ever force a jury to convict a defendant whom they don't think has done anything "wrong." This is related to my opinion that laws should set maximum panalties for crimes, never minimums. ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
