Since we are straying far afield...... I rather like the Jury Nullification concept. I think it is useful. There are a lot of stupid laws and there is no way anyone can get them changed. Well, unless you are George Soros or have that sort of money. Regards Joseph Sinclair wrote: > This discussion seems to have gotten a bit far afield, but what the heck... > > Fair warning, the following is pretty aggressive, as this issue touches on some items I am quite passionate about. If > you'd rather stick to Linux topics, feel free to skip this message. > > First, a little bit about the US government. > This country is NOT a democracy. Sorry to burst that bubble, but this nation is a Constitutional Republic. What that > means is that the people DO NOT RULE. If you read the works of the founders, you'll find that the idea of popular rule > TERRIFIED them. They believe all men to be naturally corrupt, so they wanted NO PERSON to rule; they therefore created > a government in which LAW rules the country, and nothing else. They then gave the people the right to make and change > laws through the legislative branch, AND NO OTHER. For efficiency they created an executive branch, and gave the, > presumably corrupt, chief executive a, LIMITED, role in lawmaking as a check to the, presumably corrupt, legislative > branch. For justice they created the judicial branch, and gave it power to INTERPRET law, but DENIED the, presumably > corrupt, judiciary from making or changing law, and added the jury to protect the accused from a presumed corrupt > government. The system of checks and balances was designed to pit the 3 branches of government against each other so > that they would be too busy to act against their citizens. The problem arises in that the Congress has neglected their > DUTY to balance the courts. If a justice steps over the line, the Congress has the DUTY to IMPEACH that justice. There > are currently 5 justices on the Supreme Court that DEMAND impeachment for VIOLATING their oath of office, and it is > Congress duty to DEFEND the Constitution by removing those justices, as they SWORE to do in their own oaths of office. > Note also, the Constitution does NOT grant justices a lifetime term, only that they shall serve during "terms of good > behaviour", and it only sets the terms for Supreme Court justices, all other federal justices serve according to > whatever laws Congress passes. That's another important point, the federal courts do NOT answer to the Supreme Court, > they answer to Congress (and the Constitution states that explicitly!). When several of the courts recently ignored the > lawful direction of their actions by Congress, to review a highly questioned case, and refused the jurisdiction that > Congress, by lawful act, granted them, they violated the Constitution, and those 3 justices should also be impeached. > > Jury nullification: > The Jury is NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, entitled to review, change, nullify, or modify law, NEITHER IS THE JUDGE. This > has NEVER been the case in this country, and never should. If the jury finds that a defendant did not reasonably > infringe a law, as in your couple of seeds argument, then they declare a defendant not-guilty. If they find a person > did infringe, they MUST declare that person guilty. If they feel the infringement was not a very bad thing, they can be > lenient during sentencing (where sentencing is up to the jury), but they DO NOT ignore the law, they DON'T HAVE THAT > RIGHT. We all, as a condition of living in this country, voluntarily submit ourselves to the rule of the law. If you > don't like the law, the right thing to do is change it, through the representative legislature, not through direct > action. Even the great leaders of civil disobedience acknowledge that, when engaging in civil disobedience, breaking a > law is subject to consequence, and even if the law is unjust, the consequences for breaking it must be accepted. Civil > disobedience is about peacefully breaking an unjust law WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE, not about simply ignoring a law > you don't like, or setting it aside as a jury because you don't approve. > > Judges in a courtroom are the FINAL authority with regard to matters of law, the jury DOES NOT decide points of law, > only matters of fact, guilt, and innocence. If a jury is not sure about any specific point of law, they MUST ask the > judge, and the judge will answer. This does not mean that a judge can change, review, modify, etc... law, that's not > their role either. Judges interpret law, and NOTHING ELSE. The crisis in justice in this country is because judges > have set aside their proper duty and begun to rewrite the law on their own terms, and this is UNACCEPTABLE. Thomas > Jefferson foresaw this in 1803 when, via the infamous Marbury v. Madison decision, the Supreme Court granted themselves, > via judicial fiat, an immense new power never intended by the Constitution, he became more alarmed over his remaining > years, and was, sadly, not heeded. Jury nullification is much the same, the jury ceases to determine fact, guilt, and > innocence, and chooses to decide if the law is "fair" or "just", and that is NOT THEIR JOB. > > Aside: You claim that the jury has had the right, "upheld since the 1700s" to "pass judgment not only on the facts of > the case but on the law(s) under which the case was brought". This is false. The Jury has never had the "right" to > anything. Their DUTY is to decide matters of fact and determine guilt or innocence. The jury does not, in fact, pass > judgment at all, the Judge passes judgment based on the determination of the jury as to the guilt or innocence > (culpability in civil cases) of the defendant(s) (BTW a Judge has the authority to judge a defendant not-guilty, or not > culpable, if he/she determines that the jury misapplied a point of law in reaching the guilty/culpable verdict). The > Supreme Court ADDED the power to the APPELLATE courts to review (pass judgment on) laws, thus granting JUDGES the power > to nullify or modify law. This was NEVER intended in our Constitution, BYPASSED the proper legal channel of > Constitutional Amendment, and has threatened this nation ever since. Adding this same IMPERIAL power to a jury of 6-12 > average people, to make a decision for a nation of over 300 million, is the height of recklessness, and tantamount to > insanity. > > I'll repeat myself, if you don't like a law, TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE; if they don't change it, ELECT A NEW ONE. That > is the extent of your right to change things, and YOU choose to VOLUNTARILY ACCEPT that limitation by choosing to live > in this nation. If you find that the laws under which we live are unacceptable, you can work to have them CHANGED, > properly, you can decide to ACCEPT them, or you can LEAVE. You have no other ETHICAL choice. Civil disobedience is > part of working to have a law changed, you disobey, IF THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, while working to have the LEGISLATURE > change the law. You do NOT seek out an opportunity to disobey, you do NOT nullify a law while on a jury, you do NOT > simply ignore the law. You OBEY to the limits of your CONSCIENCE, while you work, through your legal and natural > rights, to change the law. This structure properly limits the tyranny of the majority, while recognizing the dictates > of conscience, and is the only truly ETHICAL course of action. > > There is much more to say on this, but suffice it to state that, it is my firm belief that Jurist and Judicial activism > is the worst form of corrupt power-grabbing political crime extant, and it's growing acceptance in this nation is a > threat to the fabric of society as grave, and destructive, as open, armed, rebellion. > > ==Joseph++ > > Lee Einer wrote: > >>> >>>Kevin Brown wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>I have sat through jury selection where they have screened for >>>>>potential jury nullifiers by summarizing the law allegedly violated >>>>>and the infraction allegedly committed and asking each juror if they >>>>>had a problem convicting if the evidence established that the >>>>>defendant committed the alleged act. >>>>> >>>>>Needless to say, if you are honest and state that you disagree with >>>>>the law allegedly violated, you will not be selected. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>This sounds like they are doing the right thing. It is for the >>>>legislature to make laws, and the courts to enforce the laws. If the >>>>law is unjust, then the defendant can appeal to a higher court, but it >>>>is not the place of the jury to not convict simply because they don't >>>>like the law or agree with it. >>> >>> >>>It is true that it is for the legislature to make the laws. It is for >>>law enforcement and prosecutors to enforce them, and for the courts to >>>interpret them. >>> >>>What is the jury's role? Historically, the right to a jury of one's >>>peers has protected the accused both from the malicious and arbitrary >>>actions of law enforcement and from prosecution under laws deemed by the >>>community to be unjust, either in general or in application to a >>>particular case. The authority of a jury to pass judgement not only on >>>the facts of the case but on the law(s) under which the case was brought >>>has been upheld since the 1700s in this country. Critics of jury >>>nullification say that it brings anarchy to the courtroom, and that it >>>is a two-edged sword, having acquitted white supremacists of hate crimes >>>in the south. That may be true, but it is also a protection of the >>>individual from a unjust laws and arbitrary prosecution. >>> >>>The "letter of the law" can be unjust in the extreme. I can remember >>>back in days of yore, cops vacuuming out the shag carpets of vehicles, >>>and picking out the seams of levis, finding a couple of marijuana seeds, >>>and bringing charges for felony cultivation of the herb. A young adult >>>whose crime was to let a couple of seeds fall from a doobie was thus >>>prosecuted under the same law as a major drug dealer, and faced a felony >>>sentence nearly as severe as would be handed down for murder. Was this >>>just? Would it be appropriate for a jury to nullify in such >>>circumstances rather than allowing the a teenager to face a decade >>>behind bars with murderers, rapists, etc, for the crime of dropping two >>>seeds in his shag carpet? >>> >>> >>>>If you don't agree with the laws the legislature is passing, then >>>>either convince others to vote for someone else at the next election >>>>and/or write your current representative and let them know what you >>>>think. They can't/won't change what they are doing if they don't hear >>>>from people who disagree with them. >>>>--------------------------------------------------- >>>>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: >>>>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss