Thank you very much for the site links -- Supporting detail such as these
are so difficult for me to find sometime. :)
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Lee Einer wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------
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)