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.
>
I suspect that the term "reasonably infringe" is not one you would find
in the instructions to a jury. Reasonable doubt that an act is committed
would be in the jury instructions. The term "reasonably infringe"
normally comes into play when discussing the tension between personal
liberty and the liberties of others. Additionally, you lose the term
"reasonable" in the following sentence-
> 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.
>
Well, I can see that you're quite impassioned about this, and the issue
of jury nullification is one to which there is obviously some difference
of opinion. Historical fact, however, is not a matter of opinion but a
matter of record. This, from a law school website-
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
"Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their
nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay,
told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both
the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel
Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney
from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed."
You can also read a summary of the history of jury nullification in the
US here-
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JuryNullification.html
Not interested in a flame war over this, just want to bring to your
attention the fact that, for better or worse, jury nullification has
been with us since the country was founded.
> 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
>
>
>
--
Lee Einer
Dos Manos Jewelry
http://www.dosmanosjewelry.com
---------------------------------------------------
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)