Posted on 03/25/2005 9:34:29 AM PST by steampower
I just searched here at Free Republic for articles under the keywords "jury trial" and I found only one listed.
It is the story of a crime, for which an offer of a plea bargain was made, that if accepted, would have carried a penalty of two days in jail. The accused insisted upon a jury trial and was acquitted.
Terri Schiavo, on the other hand, didn't have a trial by jury. Her fate rested in the hands of one man. What was at stake was not a brief jail sentence but her very life.
Our right to a trial by a jury of our peers is our most valuable weapon in our struggle to preserve our rights, and prevent them from being trampled by the government.
The jury in Scott Peterson's trial asked for, and got, a look at the boat which he used. Judge Greer refused to actually visit Terri.
Robert Blake's jury found him not guilty, and the prosecutor called them "idiots".
We must not allow the judges in this country, be they appointed by Democrats or Republicans, or even if they are elected, to continue to make decisions which order, or allow, death without a trial by jury.
A jury has the right to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the law.
If you value your rights, your life, your liberty, and wish to continue to pursue happiness, then you have but one path to follow today:
You must henceforth dedicate yourself to achieving the goal of ensuring that no one is deprived of their life, for any reason, by a court in The United States, without a trial by a jury of their peers.
"Are you saying that every person who is on the verge of death [I'm not talking about Terri] would have to undergo a court process to decide about whether their treatement should be ended?"
No, I phrased my reply badly. The obvious course of action is that all close family members confer together, preferably with information and opinions from more than one doctor. In the vast majority of families, agreement will easily be reached. Only if they cannot reach agreement would litigation occur, and if that litigation does occur, it should be decided by a jury trial.
Thinking of the issue on a personal basis, if I was ever confronted with such a decision for my husband, I would definitely consult with his sisters (my husband has no children.) Conversely, I would want him to include my children in such discussions about me. This would tends to bind the family together and avoid later acrimony or guilt feelings, as well as be likely to produce a better decision. One person can be too close to the problem and feel overwhelmed, or be too influenced by a doctor, or whatever.
I see you are thinking. I'm fairly new here at FR. I don't know the ropes. My thread is sinking fast and I'm wondering how, or if, it can be placed where it will be seen for awhile.
If any here think that this topic requires more publicity, please tell me how to accomplish that. Thanks.
One thing you might consider is writing up you beliefes on your freeper homepage. You can include links to sites that fight judicial activism and all sorts of things. It probably wouldn't be real helpfull on this particular issue but the jurors rights stuff can always stand the attention.
I know I look at everybody's homepage.
A jury trial would make sense in one additional way.
FL rules of procedure REQUIRE mediation before trial. Thus the parties would have been forced in front of a mediation. Felos, who is a hemlock society type, would be forced to have his positiion scrutinized before getting to the jury.
As it stands now, mediation would only carry the mere threat of going before the judge.
it could be done by statute. It could even be done so it will give the parties a choice of waiving jury trial. (by agreement)
Thanks for the advice. I wish that someone with a media audience, say Rush, or Mark Levin, or Shawn Hannity, would start beating the drum.
Tom Delay: "No little judge down in Florida..."
Oh yeah Tom?
That little judge wupt yer a**!
He wupt yer a**!
I'd love to see the media talkers get the Congress mad enough to really do something in a big way. The jury system is already in place, all it needs is for the people to understand the power they have.
Which is pretty crazy when you think about it. What could be more "due process" than a jury trial?
Of course the whole notion of "incorporation" is pretty crazy, since the authors and sponsors of the legislation that became the fourteenth amendment were pretty clear that it would apply the bill of rights, and other guarantees and protections of individual rights contained in the federal Constitution against the states.
If it were a federal civil trial, and the amount in question was more than $20, a jury trial would be guaranteed. I guess a woman's life is worth less than $20?
What about the seventh amendment? Isn't that about equity? I'm confused.
A damage (civil) case would be a matter of law. When I talk about equity I'm talking about what would be judicial orders in most states. Injunctions and such. Normally juries don't get to hear those. A restraining order is perhaps a better example...if for some reason you wanted to, you could go to a jury to get a restraining order (in TX) but not anywhere else.
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.