Every adjudication we approve has always been on the agenda as "Parents and student have agreed to .... " etc., " but this time apparently someone is questioning the offense.
IMO, our school has too many oppressive policies and it MAY be the policy the student is questioning (as well as the charge ?) ... I don't know.
But if the charge is being questioned because of an intrusive or (imo) bad policy .... I'm being asked to give a guilty/not guilty response and I may not agree to the policy.
What words do I use when the vote comes around to me ... or if it is anonymous ?
“Not Guilty”.
What Mr. Douglas said. “Not guilty” is all you need to say.
...oh...thought you were talking about computer tables...
...nevermind...
I’ve been in the jury on two complex cases. When we went to deliberation I told the Jury that we don’t have to individually explain our verdict. We only have to make our individual vote and maybe be asked if it is our vote.
They are not allowed to “judge” the thought process that led to your personal decision. It means you can find vote “guilty” in a rape case because the defendent stole your lunch money 30 years ago and nobody can ask you why you voted “guilty”.
It also means that if you think a law is stupid, you can vote not guilty regarding anyone accused of breaking that law, even if the evidence against them is overwhelming.
You are never asked or required to defend your decision. You are only required to make one.
Courts run afoul of the constitution on purpose, and are slaves to the law, when the law suits them. They are as much control-freaks as are the legislators who pass unjust legislation.
The policy is what it is. When confronted with a case, just refuse to convict. Individual cases are not the plce to policy advocate. See prohibition.
If it becomes known that your "not guilty" is based on rejecting the law, the adjudicator will declare mistrial, and the perp gets to go through the ordeal again.
Rather than a simple “not guilty” I would point out the purpose of having the school board vote on the issue. There are two questions: the question of fact and the question of policy. If you dispute the conclusion of fact, you vote “not guilty” and explain why you are not convinced of the allegations. If you disagree with the policy/law, I would lean toward stipulating the facts but arguing that the policy does not serve appropriate educational interests/priorities in this particular case.
If you want the policy itself changed, argue that question separately and later. Limit the discussion to the case at hand for now.
The one thing you don’t do is mention nullification. As others have said you vote not guilty.
You mean lie?
Well, try saying that you simply don’t believe the witnesses for the side you don’t like. As a juror you are to evaluate the testimony, so lie and say you evaluated the testimony and found the case presented by the side you favor more convincing. Or at the very least, that you were not convinced by the other side’s case.
We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.
I don’t try to nullify but around here my biggest smear word is south basher or hater
Tossing out racist or anti Semite or bigot or homophobe or sexist to thwart argument is the province of low intellect low character pussies
Almost always
People like reporters
I should have read the vanity
It was not conversational nullification
Sorry
Knarf
School boards are always more lib than the populace
A given
“Not Guilty because the policy is flawed.”
If you say one word about “nullification”, or disagreeing with the law, the judge can yank you off the jury, replace you with an alternate juror, and perhaps impose sanctions upon you.
Just say nothing about your reasoning, and instead just say “The prosecution has not proved their case to my satisfaction. Not guilty”
Good Question. I sat on a civil jury in Crook County, IL where the instructions from the judge were that if we found any part of the argument of the plaintiff to be true, then we had to conclude that the entire case of the plaintiff was true and award damages accordingly.
The plaintiffs lawyer was a high profile, high campaign donor billionaire off his ambulance chasing.
The plaintiff was due money from the defendant for one emergency room visit. But in the emergency room visit and multiple hospital visits thereafter, eg delivery of a healthy baby no injury was ever found. Then, over 2 years later she goes to this lawyer and then to a chiropractor after going to the lawyer and suddenly the defendant is charged with injuries unknown to her but discovered by the chiropractor over 2 years later.
I was inclined to argue nullification. But in sizing up my fellow jurors I realized I did not have the oratorical skills to convince them. Half were smart enough to understand such a presentation. But half of my fellow jurors had no clue what a Constitution or a law was. To them a “law” was what the police or judge told you to do.
Three jurors thought it was their duty to decide that the plaintiff had hit the lottery and should be awarded millions. The had no idea how that would benefit the plaintiff when the defendant only made $15/hr on his job.
I worked with the reasonable members of the jury and awarded a token amount for ALL the injuries. But wink-wink we all knew it was for the one emergency room visit for which he was in fact liable.
The plaintiff attorney was outraged that we awarded a small amount so much lower than his fee and that we essentially pushed him into working pro bono as his client had no money to pay his fee and he had told her he would just take it out of the settlement.
Later I discovered that the judge was in fact quoting Illinois law and doing what he was mandated to do by law.
You are a board member. You are supposed to do your job. If policy is bad...you can use your skills to get it changed
If it’s a court of law, you are there to judge on the evidence, not the rectitude of the law. You’re a juror, not a legislator.
Or at least that’s the official line.