This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 08/09/2002 10:27:00 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war |
Posted on 08/08/2002 10:18:48 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) --A San Diego jury began deliberations Thursday in the trial of David Westerfield, accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.
The panel of six men and six women adjourned for the day without reaching a verdict. It is set to resume deliberations Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
That's as it should be.
(Fwiw, my internet connection broke and I had to take the dog for a walk.)
I doubt we disagree all that much on this.
As one example, I am opposed to abortion. Still, I would vote to convict anyone who killed a physician who performed them.
On the other hand, there are many states where it is illegal to use deadly force against anyone who hasn't actually entered the home. I would never vote to convict someone who used deadly force against someone who was clearly trying to enter that home with bad intentions.
The line may be thin and I think the default has to always be on the side of the law, but I also think jurors should realize they have the right to exercise discretion.
There used to be some discussion of something called the "Fully Informed Jury Act." The final instruction that the judge would be required to give the jury would be that, "Regardless of the instructions I just gave you, you have the right to vote however you think is right in this matter." Something like that.
To me, that is the essential right of the people who live in a democratic society. Governments can and do sometimes pass pass laws. They also sometimes try to enforce good laws inappopriately. The bottom line is the jury.
There is nothing indicating that an abduction even occurred; let alone that Westerfield was responsible. How could one justify voting guilt on the charge of kidnapping?
Agree, agree, agree. We must and we do try to follow the law.
Unbelievable.
I don't it does directly. Thie discussion of the requirement for the jury to follow the judge's instructions got me off-topic. Sorry about that!
Cats will never be happy until they have opposable thumbs to open the tuna. They won't need the support staff (humans).
Would these foolish people be making excuses for a child rape porno collector? Or accusing the cops of being dirty and making the most ridiculous, wild explanations trying to explain away a mountain of irrefutable evidence if the child parents had been totally 100% clean living folks??
Interesting question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.