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
(text/plain)