Hear, hear!
Thanks Servo, : This is a interesting subject and one of the most well written articles I've seen recently. He states it well, backs his premise clearly and makes his point with out having to run on and on for three pages.....Bravo
bkmk
The entire purpose of the jury is to ensure the government, the King, doesn’t just make bad laws and jail the people as the people have authority via the jury over what laws they will find a person guilty of violating. If the jury doesn’t like the law, so be it.
The government employees feel they, and they alone, have total authority over the people and all dictates come from them. Well, surprise, We the People also have authority. We can ignore their dictates.
Juries are truly unto themselves, yet they have bizarre limits on them, set by the courts. For example, juries may not consult the Bible when reaching a decision, but they may flip a coin. Odd in that not long ago, witnesses had to swear on the Bible.
One of the grossest abuses by a juror that made me clench my teeth was during the trial of a child killer in California. The evidence was overwhelming, and conviction was almost guaranteed. To show his contempt for the proceedings, as the jury was led to the jury room to reach their verdict, he “flipped them off”. As expected, they found him guilty.
But after conviction, one juror chimed in and said: “I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, until he flipped us off. Then I knew he was guilty.”
ARGH! In my opinion, that should have been enough for a mistrial. But the courts didn’t think so.
And that is the acid test of juries. By *whatever* means they reach a verdict is generally okay. If that includes nullification, then fine.
But it will almost *never* be called nullification. Which is one of the ways the courts keep a lid on nullification.
During Prohibition, juries nullified so much that the government came up with an alternative means to the same end as conviction: the injunction.
A judge would enjoin a rum runner in such a way that his civil rights were stripped from him. He no longer had freedom to travel, freedom of association, and many other things. And if he violated the injunction, he would be hauled up before the judge, not a jury, to face a “contempt of court” citation, up to six months in jail.
Probably doesn’t understand why a jury of his peers is used instead a jury of judges or blood sucking lawyers!
I also think it is right in the privacy of the jury room for a jury to nullify a conviction.
It should be strongly discouraged all along the way, and any potential juror who suggests he might engage in it should be kicked of the jury.
But if it happens anyway then that is perfectly acceptable.
The best way to get rid of bad laws is to force people to live under them. If the Republicans had been less stupid they would have focused their efforts on forcing Obama to enforce ObamaCare as passed. We might already be seeing votes for its complete nullification.
Instead we'll have to wait until enough people get screwed over to want to vent their anger at the Dems. Now it looks like that might not be until it's too late.
It is the duty to convict those, who in the totality of their actions and above reasonable doubt, were guilty of violation of legitimate law and to acquit all others. I consider “legitimate law” to mean law including the penalty being imposed. There have been cases where a defendant committed a minor crime, but because of “three strikes” laws, would face an unbearable and unjust prison term. I could not vote guilty in those cases.
The judicial system too often conspires with the legal establishment, legislatures and law enforcement to act as instrument of oppression.
Whenever I am called to jury duty I tell the judge that if the law which the defendant was charged or the manner of his prosecution were clearly in violation of the Constitution, it is my duty to vote to acquit. They ask me to leave without talking to any other prospective jurors.
I have jury duty tomorrow. Try everything i can to get out of the corrupt machine.