lesliemangus
September 1
??? I never said anything close to what your paraphrase says. MOST laws are bad laws, but the doctrine of 'jury nullification" does not prevent a jury from nullifying good laws. I never never never never said that all laws are good laws. My point is that whether a particular law is good or bad is a subjective valuation.
There is no reason to think that jury made laws will be any better than laws passed by the legislature. After all a jury could decide that chattel slavery should be allowed or that someone should be jailed on the allegation of a government official.
I did say that you should not mention “jury nullification” because that implies the jury can just make up any law they want to. You should argue that the law should not apply to the case at hand.
Starchild
September 1 |
Les,
Allow me to paraphrase your comment below to apply its logic to another topic we recently discussed, the desirability of government:
Your comments (defending the institution of government) suggest that only laws that YOU think are good will be adopted. But every law must have seemed good to some people or it would never have been enacted. Laws that legalize chattel slavery or allow you to be summarily jailed on the allegation of a government official can be passed as well. The theory of “let’s trust government to keep us safe and do our bidding” is surely one of the least thought out theories in all recorded history.
Sound reasonable?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
In Reply To
lesliemangus
August 24
I think you would be foolish to mention jury nullification, even if you wanted to use it. Before I turned 70 I was on numerous juries. The judges always said that the jury must decide the case based on the law and the facts. The judge explains the law, but they always said that the jury gets to deci…
Previous Replies
Starchild
September 1
Les,
Allow me to paraphrase your comment below to apply its logic to another topic we recently discussed, the desirability of government:
Your comments (defending the institution of government) suggest that only laws that YOU think are good will be adopted. But every law must have seemed good to some people or it would never have been enacted. Laws that legalize chattel slavery or allow you to be summarily jailed on the allegation of a government official can be passed as well. The theory of “let’s trust government to keep us safe and do our bidding” is surely one of the least thought out theories in all recorded history.
Sound reasonable?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
lesliemangus
August 31
I have no idea what your first sentence means. I said that you are foolish to mention jury nullification.
Your comment suggests that only laws that YOU think are bad will be nullified. But every law must have seemed good to some people or it would never have been enacted. Laws that guarantee the right to own a gun or the right to free speech could be nullified as well.
The theory of “jury nullification” is surely one of the least thought out theories in all recorded history.
Les Mangus
Starchild
August 25 |
Les,
I was not urging Kevin or other potential jurors to “claim jury nullification”, but rather to simply practice it. As my own experience illustrates, openly raising the topic can indeed get you kicked off a jury (or not selected to serve on one). It’s more effective to nullify bad laws, or unfair enforcement of the law, by simply stating that you feel reasonable doubt exists, and voting not guilty. It may make you look foolish in a case where there appears to be no reasonable doubt, but better to look a little foolish and see the cause of justice served. It can be relevant in a civil case – people may be non-criminally penalized for breaking bad laws, or for violating non-existent “rights”, just as they may face criminal penalties for these things. If the application of such penalties in a civil case is unjust, then it’s good to prevent them being inflicted on someone by nullifying (voting to acquit).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
··· (click for more details)
Starchild
August 25
Les,
I was not urging Kevin or other potential jurors to “claim jury nullification”, but rather to simply practice it. As my own experience illustrates, openly raising the topic can indeed get you kicked off a jury (or not selected to serve on one). It’s more effective to nullify bad laws, or unfair enforcement of the law, by simply stating that you feel reasonable doubt exists, and voting not guilty. It may make you look foolish in a case where there appears to be no reasonable doubt, but better to look a little foolish and see the cause of justice served. It can be relevant in a civil case – people may be non-criminally penalized for breaking bad laws, or for violating non-existent “rights”, just as they may face criminal penalties for these things. If the application of such penalties in a civil case is unjust, then it’s good to prevent them being inflicted on someone by nullifying (voting to acquit).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
lesliemangus
August 24
I think you would be foolish to mention jury nullification, even if you wanted to use it. Before I turned 70 I was on numerous juries. The judges always said that the jury must decide the case based on the law and the facts. The judge explains the law, but they always said that the jury gets to decide the facts. I never had any problem arguing for “not guilty” based on the facts. Besides that it is not clear to me what relevance jury nullification would have in a civil case, where you are mostly determining if one of the parties breached a contract or violated the other parties rights.
Even in a criminal trial you are better off finding some reasonable doubt as claiming jury nullification will most likely get you kicked off the jury. And then of course you cannot be of any help to the defendant.
dennz
August 23 |
It’s important….I was personally the victim of an ignorant jury. And while the judge couldn’t overturn the jury’s decision, he reduced their penalty to me from $85K to $1 saying “I just don’t get it” and that he didn’t understand their decision at all.
In this case, the jury was “captive” to one guy. I’ll tell you about it privately.
Mike
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
··· (click for more details)
dennz
August 23
It’s important….I was personally the victim of an ignorant jury. And while the judge couldn’t overturn the jury’s decision, he reduced their penalty to me from $85K to $1 saying “I just don’t get it” and that he didn’t understand their decision at all.
In this case, the jury was “captive” to one guy. I’ll tell you about it privately.
Mike
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.