Posted on 05/05/2009 8:28:39 AM PDT by SmithL
MIAMI (AP) -- An uncooperative juror has been replaced on the panel in Miami deliberating the case of six men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and attack FBI offices.
. . .U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard said Tuesday the juror had violated her duty by refusing to deliberate and casting doubt on the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
well if your idea of fixing the problem of bad law, will allow a man to rot in jail waiting for the legislature to fix the probelm, well let me just state i hope that unfortunate person is you, not anyone else.
that is a selfish, immoral, anti-patriotic postion to take. for you to allow a freeman to be imprisoned for a law you KNOW is wrong, just becuase you have some high headed belief that the legal system will eventualy fix itself, and you must wait for that process is dead wrong.
the jury is to not convict an innocent man. a man is not guilty of violating unjust laws. you would rather convict a man to prison than vote to free that man, just becuase you think the law should be fixed by someone else. that is sick and is of the same mind set that allowed law abiding germans to ignore the rounding up of the jews by hitler. just wait until it is your problem
for some reason, I bet you would not want to be in prison for an un-just law. I bet you would not want to wait for our failed legislature, and revisionist judges to fix the problem.
you are not fit to serve on anyting but a Stalinist kangoroo court “jury”.
Why worry about revisionist judges when you can have revisionist juries?
I think we've both made our respective positions abundantly clear on this. I'll wish you a good day and leave it to those reading the thread to decide for themselves.
I think I agree with you here. This fits well with the feelings expressed by the founding fathers as well.
It would have been kinda hard for the Supreme Court to declare slavery unconstitutional when it's written into the Constitution.
will you convict anyone of a “hate crime” law? that is already way over the line, Un-constitutional. no longer time to wait, this kind of law is currently in force and the demoncrats have no intention on giving this up. it will be up to jurors in the mean time to keep folks out of prison until these laws can be overturned.
however there are certain persons that aparently do not mind being imprisoned for hate crime laws, they would rather wait for the legislature to see the wrongs of their laws, and undo the mess they made.
it is one thing to stand up and state you rather be in jail and wait for the law to be fixed by legislative process. It is a whole other thing to send someone to jail and tell them they must rot and wait for the bad law to be fixed. What sacrifices are you willing to force others to make before you vote to not convict for bad laws??????
this is how tyrants gain power, sheeple blindinly following the law, just because it is the “law”. this is how nations fall, when common man can no longer choose right over wrong. when they are lead to believe that the government is best, and you must rely on the government to interput what rights you have. that is wishy washy brain rot thought. you should know your rights and demand they be repected at all times, you must always insist your fellow man have those rights always honored, inspite of any laws made.
Totally agree with your well articulated thoughts.
It is inappropriate to accept the protection of the law, and disobey it whenever you like. If you think that our legal process is not legitimate, get out there and overthrow the government.
Absolutely correct, and jury nullification cuts both ways. As a juror, I can determine that the testimony the judge ordered me to “ignore”, as well as other technical legal loopholes offered up by some smug defense attorney, will not get the perp “off”.
-you gotta read this thread...
if they made “hate” illegal, the democrats would all end up in jail for their treatment of conservatives.....what they did was to make SOME hate illegal......thus unconstitutional, IMHO....who can legislate hate? it is an emotion....a thought.
I agree with you Chris and I doubt the correctness of those who say a juror can and should question the legality of a law. I have been on several juries, civil and criminal, and none of us were of that opinion. We were instructed to decide the case within the law, period.
I believe this attitude of personal power to decide the correctness of the law is an out growth of the moral relevancy being taught in our schools and demanded by the Left.
“I believe this attitude of personal power to decide the correctness of the law is an out growth of the moral relevancy being taught in our schools and demanded by the Left.”
I beg to differ. Jury nullification is hardly a modern event. One of the earliest cases where a jury decided a case disregarding settled law and the judges’s instructions was in 1670. In this trial, William Penn was charged with violation of the “Conventicle Act,” which made the Church of England the only legal Church. The jurors who voted ‘not guilty’ not only set Penn free to emmigrate to America (subsequently founding a place called “Pennsylvania) but they caused the very Act he was supposed to have violated to be struck down. They spent nine weeks in prison for their audacity.
Since then several U.S. courts have decreed the jury has the right and the power to judge both the facts in the case and the law in question. In the late 1930’s judges stopped telling juries of that right but it’s still there.
I suggest you check out the FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) site at FIJA.org. Afterward, even if you still disagree with the principle you will at least understand why others feel differently.
if you when ever you like is when ever the law is wrong, then it is ok to break the law. I give for instance a hate crime law. it is ok to break that law, it is an illegal law in my opinion. i will break it, and never convict anyone of it.
this is totally appropriate, and i deserve the full protection of the law (freedom of speech) to enforce my and your right aginst this illegal hate crime law.
For the life of me I can see no difference between your position and the position of those who advocate supporting illegal immigration, because, they believe, our immigration laws are immoral.
Thank you for that very informative reply. However, in my experience, and I agree with this, the juries that I was involved with were instructed to judge the case according to present law. I agree with that. As another Freeper said, each juror should not act as an independent member of SCOUS.
lets turn your silly acusation around, from your position, no wonder we have idiot gun control convictions.
so you would really convict a person of a law you know is not right, that you firmly believe is un-constititutional??? knowing fullwell that this person will be jailed, fined, family broken, job lost, criminal record, etc... you would hope that that bad law be overturned,(but you may do nothing to lobby for its overturning) yet still convict. is that what you are telling us is your duty as a juror????
it is your duty to save persons from conviction of bad law.
to answer your thing about illegals, someone on a jury has that right to vote not guilty, just as they do to vote not guilty on a hate crime trial. I would agreee with one, and not with the other. I believe that becuase one law is good, the other law is bad, no other reason.
now honestly, you wouldn’t really convict someone of a law you believed to be a violation of rights would you???? are you really going to say what ever is law is law, no matter what it is, and all laws must be applied, even the bad ones??? ones that you know are a violation fo the bill of rights??? you would let a man be convicted of breaking one of these bad laws????
Unfortunately I do not think that I will be able to carry you around with me to tell me what laws I should obey and what laws I can violate. By the way, what part of the Constitution makes YOU the sole lawmaker of the country?
and when the law is a leftist law, something brained washed into kids in public schools. Now grown up, they run the courts and politics, having never learned American history (except it was run by bad white slave owners) and its principles and Rights, these new leaders make bad laws, these are often leftist laws.
the idiot masses, brained washed by public schools, now mostly believe in hate crimes, despite its trampling on freedom of thought and speech. who is it that can stop a conviction now??? maybe the few free thinkers that understand how bad this law is, can set folks free.
the lack of an educated jury in American history, and Americas Billof rights and Constitution allow prosecuters to get convictions for breaking of bad un-constitutional laws. Prosecuters love to have a jury of mindless sheep, all folks that no little if anything about the fundimental Rights we have. The prosecutors (often politicial appointees, liberals to the bone in liberal states)hate folks that respect our inalienable rights, folks that find it self evident that we have these rights. Folks that understand that government cannot be allowed to take these rights. If the law violates these self evident rights, we have a duty to reject that bad law. we do not wait for the law to change and suffer some man a fate in jail, no we are part of the legal system,a dn we can decide to not impose a bad law. bad laws would go away if more folks were educated in true American history, adn educated in teh self evident inalienable rights we have in America. the dilution of history education, and the leftist liberal teachers have educated a mindless jury pool, a jury pool that does not understand nor hold dear the God given inalienable rights we have. the jury pool has no become a liberal infested or uncaring cess pool of ignorance.
Free thinekrs can help end the sufgfering that good honest men face when the government tries to convict them of breaking un-constitutional laws.
i am not telling you how to decide, it is up to each person to decide, I can gie what I think is good guidenace. there are constitutional scholors with a conservative bent (non-revisionist) that have published papers on specific laws that have fundimental constitutional probelms. I suggest reading some of that stuff if you desire guidenace.
If you have a specific case, i will be happy to share my opinion with you. let me know.
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.