Posted on 02/01/2003 8:31:30 AM PST by freepatriot32
Beg those questions.
Huh, I guess, according to you, Nicole Simpson's family have been "liberated" by the use of jury nullification.
So in other words, someone dying from cancer should not be allowed to use medical marijuana to ease their pain, or to alleviate symptoms from chemotherapy, because it may be harmful?
I believe that someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness has the right to decide, along with their doctor, what works best for them.
You and the rest of the uncompassionate "conservatives" should just butt out.
And those who risk death by skydiving for the "thrill" should be arrested and locked up as well.
Alcohol is addictive and harms people. Tobacco is addictive and harms people.
Looks like you get your info on marijuana from "Reefer Madness". You're in good company though, our entire drug policy is based on the "facts" from that movie.
"That movie"??
Huh maybe current drug policy is based on the fact that marijauna and other drug usage and glorification is a basic tenet of the modern American radical left.
Oh that's right you blame it on a movie, just like the modern American radical left blames the "gung ho" opinion about Iraq on John Wayne movies.
Any power can be used for good or ill. It is just that our philosophy, part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, is that it it better that 100 guilty people go free than that 1 innocent person shall be punished. I agree with that philosophy, do you? I am outraged that any innocent person goes to jail and find that the criminal justice system is horribly corrupt. As evidence, I offer the 12 death row inmates freed with absolute proof of their innocence by a bunch of law students on a class project.
We need an intelligent bunch of jurors, and an end to the system of picking jurors that selects the intelligent ones out.
Does anyone know of a registered Libertarian that has gotten on a criminal jury in the last 10 years?
Thank you Oprah for your input.
What about the families George Ryan spit in the face from getting justice, because of his quest for protection from the liberal press and a Nobel prize.
Thank you for showing with your italicized statement that, in general, pro-potters on FR are people who feel that they have been wronged by the system and are basically willing to let out 100 violent criminals for every one wrongly judged by that system.
JMO, but send your resume to Hillary, you would be a perfect drone for her office staff.
That is exactly correct. The system is corrupt in that prosecutors try very hard to convict people who they decide is guilty and thereafter ignore contradictory evidence. The trial is no longer a search for the truth but a contest of gladiators. The system clearly convicts innocent people regularly even though our principles say that one must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we followed that principle, we should be letting many guilty go free to ensure that we NEVER convict an innocent man. That is our underlying criminl law principle but are you saying that conservatives do not agree with it? If so, I am newly glad to be a Libertarian.
Newly? Yeah right, with your total animus towards the current justice system, you have always been a Libertarian, IMHO.
The typical Libertarian, who applauds the OJ verdict as "justice" against the system,(etc. etc.).
But I'll give you credit. At least you are honest about your Libertarian/ACLU beliefs.
You unlike the other pro-potters on FR, don't hide behind an invisible curtain, where they, the other pro-potters, proclaim they are the uber conservatives and only they hold the mantle of being true Reagan conservatives.
I salute you for breaking away from that facade and declaring your true politcal side on social issues.
The side of John Conyers and Hillary.
Hardly. I am scared witless by the thought that Hillary might become President, considering all the anti-terrorism laws and precedents being set in this administration. A Libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. There is no liberal in there. There is fervent constitutional adherence in there and strong moral values. It is an insult and an ad hominem to compare me with those nitwits.
Libertarians agree with conservatives on roughly 75% of issues. It is only the social tolerance that bothers you and I am proud of my position on those issues. I support individual freedom for everyone, even the unpopular.
Also, I did not claim to be a new Libertarian. I have been a dues paying member of the national party for decades. I was saying that my pride in being a member was reaffirmed if conservatives do not adhere to the principle that it is better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent shall be punished.
Reagan was OK, though I was unhappy that he got talked into a tax increase. He was a breath of fresh air in a liberal stink hole that D.C. had become.
But my true Republican hero was Barry Goldwater. It was him and his 1964 run for President that drew me and many other boomers to the Republicans. It was Nixon that chased us out of the Republican party and resulted in the formation of the Libertarian Party in 1971.
I gave Nixon my first vote in 1968 and was sorely disappointed in his policies.
The O.J. Simpson jury decided that Marcia Clark et al. failed to make a solid case. I'd say that the credit/blame for O.J.'s acquittal goes more to the inept prosecution and the ineffective judge than to the jury.
If the state fails to make a solid case, it is right and proper for a jury to acquit. To be sure, the prosecution wasn't helped by Ito's allowing the defense to turn the court into a circus, but again that's not the jury's fault.
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.