Members Bassin' 'Round Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163877,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Yes, more people should be aware of this. In fact, everyone in America should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Holy {censored}. I agree with iualum on something. Mark the date. The first example in that story seems weird though... did the judge bar the defense from mentioning that weed was being grown for medical purposes, or from mentioning jury nullification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fran da Man Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by takeout Holy {censored}. I agree with iualum on something. Mark the date.The first example in that story seems weird though... did the judge bar the defense from mentioning that weed was being grown for medical purposes, or from mentioning jury nullification? So why do judges continue to get jury nullification wrong? Many point to an 1895 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that judges aren't obligated to tell jurors of their power to nullify bad law. Some have wrongly interpreted that decision to invalidate the doctrine of jury nullification altogether. They're mistaken. I doubt that the common person (that never studied law) is even aware of nullification, i wasn't till I opened this thread...well i had heard of it but thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Whatever that story says can't be true since it's on FoxNews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Cool info, thanks!! Good to know that the peons still have soem ability to throw sand in the gears of the governmental machine. And I mean that in a good way:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 I know one guy that gets called for jury duty almost once a year. When they question him he asks about Jury nullification. They get him out of there as quickly as they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 A couple weeks ago I sat in a jury, but the jury was SCRUPULOUSLY screened for anyone that would render anything other than a 'guilty' verdict (even the public 'defender'.) They booted my Libertarian juror #12 self out of there. Didn't leave me with a whole lot of respect for the system as it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by takeout Holy {censored}. I agree with iualum on something. Mark the date.The first example in that story seems weird though... did the judge bar the defense from mentioning that weed was being grown for medical purposes, or from mentioning jury nullification? Judges frequently bar attorneys from mentioning jury nullification. In this case, it seemed to me that the attorney was barred from mentioning that the defendant was growing the marijuana for the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by Thunderbroom Whatever that story says can't be true since it's on FoxNews. Even a clock that is broken is right twice a day. Unless it's digital... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by lug I know one guy that gets called for jury duty almost once a year. When they question him he asks about Jury nullification. They get him out of there as quickly as they can. And so another jury doesn't get to hear about it. For me, justice must take precedence over convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Worf101 Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 These are egregious sentences and bad examples of justice gone wrong BUT Jury Nullification was also used in America for Centuries in instances when murders or lynchings were committed. Thousands of Blacks, poor whites, Mexicans and Native Americans were killed over the centuries and their killlers set free by this self same jury nullification. See the case of Emmitt Till. That's why they had to start trying people for violations of the victims civil rights because often, far too often, locals would not convict the police or thier neighbors of killing that injin, nigger, wetback or sod buster. Da Worfster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 What the hell This is the other extreme, I heard the other day of a child molester who repeateldly abused a little girl over 4 years, getting 4 MONTHS in prison. Justice has gone down the toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by isaac42 And so another jury doesn't get to hear about it.For me, justice must take precedence over convenience. Oh he WANTS to serve, he is just "excused" very quickly. he first thing they usually ask is if he is a lawyer. Once they find out he isn't, out he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by lug Oh he WANTS to serve, he is just "excused" very quickly. he first thing they usually ask is if he is a lawyer. Once they find out he isn't, out he goes. If he wants to serve, why does he ask about jury nullification, knowing it will get him excused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by isaac42 If he wants to serve, why does he ask about jury nullification, knowing it will get him excused? Because he doesn't believe it should be a "secert". He usually will bend all the other juror's ears about it as much as he can. I'm sure it gives the other jurors a unique perspective on how the lawyers and judge view themselves a bit "above" the common juror. You might call it an "agenda" for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by lug Because he doesn't believe it should be a "secert". He usually will bend all the other juror's ears about it as much as he can. I'm sure it gives the other jurors a unique perspective on how the lawyers and judge view themselves a bit "above" the common juror. You might call it an "agenda" for him. And as a result, he gets sent home, the other jurors are told he's wrong, and no progress is made. He's not serving his agenda, unless it's not to serve on jury duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by isaac42 And as a result, he gets sent home, the other jurors are told he's wrong, and no progress is made. He's not serving his agenda, unless it's not to serve on jury duty. He serves his agenda by pointing out the irregularities of the court. He may not get to serve but he makes the point that the jury is supposed to be the one in charge, not the judge or lawyers. From a pratical standpoint, he is probably not convincing enough jurors to make a difference and in that light he fails. Same reason I don't vote Libertarian in a close race. Another guy I know that gets called often and always excused and once asked why. He found out his engineering profession is almost an automatic strike off a jury. Seems the side with the weaker case doesn't like having people who are too "logical" and can't be swayed with emotion on the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Yeah, no one wants someone who can actually think on the jury! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hoerni Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by lug Another guy I know that gets called often and always excused and once asked why. He found out his engineering profession is almost an automatic strike off a jury. Seems the side with the weaker case doesn't like having people who are too "logical" and can't be swayed with emotion on the jury. I'm in that category too. Last time I was selected to be on a jury, I was the first one the defense kicked off. I've heard this from other engineers too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted July 28, 2005 Members Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by isaac42 Even a clock that is broken is right twice a day.Unless it's digital... A clock that is stopped is right twice a day. A clock that runs a littls slow (like fox news) is almost never right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted July 28, 2005 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by bholder A clock that is stopped is right twice a day. A clock that runs a littls slow (like fox news) is almost never right. Twice a day is no better, when you don't know exactly when it's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.