CLOG THE COURTS!!!!
Mildred Pierce
pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I tend to agree, except to clog the courts thing. That makes us
> > > > like them in that we become part of the problem.
> > >
> > > When figiting a wildfire, it is often usefull to create even more
> > > controled fires, effectivly forming a burnt out barrier against
> > > which the wildfire can not cross. I see the cloging of the courts
> > > much the same as a controled fire break.
> >
> > The wildfire analogy is an interesting analogy. I don't think we
> > should be blamed for clogging the courts. We should not be into
> > guilt trips.
When we are talking about clogging the courts we are talking about
using methods such as jury nullification to overturn laws. Juries
nullifying laws would cause the courts the become clogged with cases
dealing with laws that the general public would not like. Jury
Nullification is SUPPOSED to clog the system because that gives
lawmakers an incentive to change the laws to reflect the public's
wishes. The law machine is not supposed to work seamlessly, it can
only work that way if the public does not have a say in the matter of
what is good law and what is bad law. The main purpose of the jury is
to decide on the law, not on the facts of the case being tried.
Certainly you would not have to bring in a jury to decide facts.
Scientists are best at deciding facts. The jury is there because it
represents the public.
> > They started the whole mess. The authorities (police, lawyers, many
> > judges, many politicians) have forced our hands.
>
> Just as a wildfire forces our hands! Yes.
Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
laws who clog it. If jury nullification ever becomes a real practice,
as it should, in these United States then it will be up to them to
either ignore the law and quit arresting innocent people and trying
them. Or the will have to start putting presure on the law-makers to
start getting rid of these stupid laws once and for all.
Clog the Courts! By all means clog them! Force these people to get
their priorities straight!!! Juries of the world unite! Throw out the
any law you do not agree with!
--
-- m.p. -- http://popamericana.com/libertanon -- http://mp3.com/76
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pro...@my-deja.com
> pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > Greg <ciph...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I tend to agree, except to clog the courts thing. That makes
> > > > > us like them in that we become part of the problem.
> > > >
> > > > When figiting a wildfire, it is often usefull to create even
> > > > more controled fires, effectivly forming a burnt out barrier
> > > > against which the wildfire can not cross. I see the cloging
> > > > of the courts much the same as a controled fire break.
> > >
> > > The wildfire analogy is an interesting analogy. I don't think we
> > > should be blamed for clogging the courts. We should not be into
> > > guilt trips.
>
> When we are talking about clogging the courts we are talking about
> using methods such as jury nullification to overturn laws. Juries
> nullifying laws would cause the courts the become clogged with cases
> dealing with laws that the general public would not like.
How would jury nullification clog the courts? Seems to me, it would
sort of clear the court for more important things, as the jury sees it.
When *I* am talking about clogging the courts, *I* am talking about
cloging the courts with a flood of voluntary submissions for judgment by
court.
> Jury Nullification is SUPPOSED to clog the system because that gives
> lawmakers an incentive to change the laws to reflect the public's
> wishes.
Again, seems to me jury nullification would clear the courts, as it
would quickly dismiss charges against such individuals, and it would
provide an incentive to change the laws to reflect the juries wishes not
to have to sit through such cases!
> The law machine is not supposed to work seamlessly, it can only work
> that way if the public does not have a say in the matter of what is
> good law and what is bad law.
!!! WHAT??? !!! Are you saying that the public is NOT supposed to
have a say in what is good law and what is bad law? Are you saying that
the public is NOT supposed to be able to support by their vote those
government electorates who support the laws they believe to be good?
Are you saying that the public is NOT supposed to be able to Petition
the government for a Vote on any issues of law?
> The main purpose of the jury is to decide on the law, not on the
> facts of the case being tried.
!!! WHAT??? !!! Are you saying that Juries are not supposed to
supposed to determine the validity of the facts of the case being tried?
What country are you in Ms. Pierce?
> Certainly you would not have to bring in a jury to decide facts.
This is in total opposition to the 9th Ammendment of our Bill of
Rights in the Constitution, protecting our "Right of Trial by Jury"!!!
> Scientists are best at deciding facts. The jury is there because it
> represents the public.
Scientists are best at uncovering the facts. The Jury is there to
determine how they will react to such facts. It may or may not be a
fact that Mary Jane smoked a joint! It is up to the Jury to determine
if Mary Jane should be held accountable to anybody for smoking that
joint.
--
Email blocks all but personal list:
< http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
>judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
>laws who clog it.
You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
I think you are wrong.
I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
of popular opinion.
Can you name a law you think people don't like?
I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
thinking that they are commonly held.
But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
"we" want to nullify.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Jorge Landivar
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>
> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
1) Anti-medical pot laws
2) california's SB15 and SB23
--
echelon cycle waster v2.3
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 REVOLUTION CHEROKEEHILLARY BILL CLINTON
GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASKFORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS
12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL REVOLUTION NRA
GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA HIJACK BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT
OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP
HOT SPRINGS HOTEL CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA CATCHER
IN THE RYE VIETNAM ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT CONSPIRACY LOW
SULFUR COAL LIPPO GROUP ALTERNATIVE 3 OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN
TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA
SAVIN GAMMA SF RESISTER MJ12
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DDDQQDAwK3PfMtQMnqkWDJHjm9z3uOqda5CLcj5KhztpjBa4Z4ZEIkJloe
7RB0mw==
=oNEV
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Shan
> wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
Really? How about them medical cannibis referendums passed in seven
states (seven, right?)? Seems to me the people went to the polls and
spoke quite clearly, and yet the feds are locking citizens up for
years.... This seems to refute your point.
I think what you ment to convey was that the people will get as fucked
as they allow themselves. Or as my friend Doug say's "we get the
government we deserve".
> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
> juror, even if you disagree with it.
We'll sir, I'd say there's a better reason for a citizen to hold
contemptable in contempt!
Regards,
shan
Shan
> Judges are paid an annual salary, and it is actually in their interest
> to have less work rather than more.
>
> Have you gone over the edge to crackpottery here?
Crackpottery, eh? I'll say, and how!
Remember that no matter if the Judge is appointed, or elected it's still
a rather political post. Also remember how important "Law and Order" and
the evergrowing dope-menace-threat is.
Guns! Drugs! Crime! You're smart enough, George, what do you reckon the
whole "war on drugs" is worth - all the budgetary justifications and
whatnots included? I'd say it's just about uncomprehendable. And it's
not just here in the US either, oh, no - it's world-wide baby. The UN's
in on it big-time.... But no matter whether it's Bogata or Brooklyn the
ultimate motive is the same - civil pacification.
It's all about social control, simple as that.
shan
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:19:08 GMT, Mildred Pierce
> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
> >laws who clog it.
>
> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>
> I think you are wrong.
>
> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
> of popular opinion.
>
>
> thinking that they are commonly held.
>
> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
> "we" want to nullify.
>
> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification. Something
must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities suggest
that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot? Now, imagine
being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to tell
the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors knew
their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws. Maybe
more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that this
country needs.
pro...@my-deja.com
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers
> > > and the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try
> > > these unjust laws who clog it.
> >
> > You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
> >
> > I think you are wrong.
> >
> > I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
> > wind of popular opinion.
> >
> > Can you name a law you think people don't like?
> >
> > I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake
> > of thinking that they are commonly held.
> >
> > But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
> > think "we" want to nullify.
>
> their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
> Something must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to
> juries about jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The
> probabilities suggest that it wouldn't take much for jury
> nullification to have an impact.
>
> Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot? Now, imagine being
> acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to tell the
> jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
> injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors
> knew their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid
> laws. Maybe more people would vote too. People need to have a sense
> of having the power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in
> the arm that this country needs.
Jury nullification can, and indeed, does work! The following is from
just such a drug related case here in my hometown.
From Normal News some time back:
< http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=531544537 >
Man Found Guilty Of Marijuana Trafficking, Receives One Cent Fine
Sept. 30, 1999, Bowling Green, KY: Sometimes the punishment
does fit the crime.
A man charged with trafficking less than eight ounces of
marijuana (a misdemeanor in Kentucky) at General Motor's Corvette
assembly plant was handed down a fine of one penny by a Warren County
Court jury.
Steven D. Eichholz was arrested in the May 1998 undercover drug
sweep at the GM Plant. On Sept. 17 he was found guilty of trafficking
marijuana, but was given a symbolic fine of one cent.
The jury reprimanded the auto maker on the juror form for what
they called GM's "underhanded and nonprofessional" methods of policing
its employees.
The undercover operation occurred when Aset Corp., a private
security company hired by GM, placed an attractive woman undercover in
the plant. During the workday she would make occasional comments about
wanting to "have a joint."
Seventeen GM workers in all were arrested in the five-month drug
sweep, many of whom have already pled guilty.
Now, Warren County Attorney Mike Caudill is asking that drug
charges against seven other employees caught in the same drug sting be
dismissed because of "fundamental fairness and private law enforcement"
that did not understand "evidence integrity or constitutional rights."
"It's heartening to see a jury dispense a penalty that fits the
crime," said Allen St. Pierre, NORML Foundation Executive Director. "If
more citizens would legally challenge their marijuana arrests rather
than cop a plea bargain, more citizen jurors will hear how invasive and
excessive the war on marijuana smokers has become."
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML
Foundation Executive Director at (202) 483-8751.
--
Email blocks all but personal list:
< http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <cmgn7sg08mhruadr6...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:19:08 GMT, Mildred Pierce
>> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
>> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
>> >laws who clog it.
>>
>> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>>
>> I think you are wrong.
>>
>> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
>> of popular opinion.
>>
>> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>>
>> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
>> thinking that they are commonly held.
>>
>> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
>> "we" want to nullify.
>>
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
> Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The founders, in
>their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification. Something
>must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities suggest
>that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>
> Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
Now, imagine
>being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to tell
>the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
>injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors knew
>their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws. Maybe
>more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
>power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that this
>country needs.
I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
juror, even if you disagree with it.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<land...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>
>1) Anti-medical pot laws
California and other states have made medical use of dope ok.
SO I'm not sure that that proves that there are laws which are not
popular.
>2) california's SB15 and SB23
don't know them.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike
><logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <cmgn7sg08mhruadr6...@4ax.com>,
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:19:08 GMT, Mildred Pierce
>>> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
>>> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
>>> >laws who clog it.
>>>
>>> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>>>
>>> I think you are wrong.
>>>
>>> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
>>> of popular opinion.
>>>
>>> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>>>
>>> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
>>> thinking that they are commonly held.
>>>
>>> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
>>> "we" want to nullify.
>>>
>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>>
>> Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The founders, in
>>their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification. Something
>>must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>>jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities suggest
>>that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>
>Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>
Less than 10% of the people in the US support anti-drug laws.
It should be eazy to fine one out of 12 that doesn't support drug laws
if the jurys weren't stacked by the government.
>>
>> Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
>
>No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
>wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
>
Does the public support laws against pot? The public doesn't get what
it wants laws are written to give government more power and to employ
more people by government not because they are what the people want.
> Now, imagine
>>being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to tell
>>the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
>>injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors knew
>>their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws. Maybe
>>more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
>>power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that this
>>country needs.
>
>I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
>
I think that you overestimate how many laws are supported by anyone
except government.
>There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>juror, even if you disagree with it.
>
To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you disagree
with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
pro...@my-deja.com
> Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
> > the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
> > unjust laws who clog it.
>
> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>
> I think you are wrong.
>
> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
> of popular opinion.
>
> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
You phrased your question in such a way as to prevent any proveable
answers with current laws, while providing yourself an out if previous
laws. With current laws, the only verifiable way to determine the
people's "likes" is by vote, but once a vote is taken, those laws are no
longer current! Until the vote is taken, it can't be proved. After the
vote is taken, it would no longer be law! Not to mention that your
asking for somebody's opinion rather than the facts. Let's restructure
your question, and focus only on the facts.
You could have asked: "Can you name a law which people didn't like?
And, as examples of such laws, consider every law which was ever
repealed. One of which, by the way, was the "Prohibition" of consentual
alcohol use! Every law which was frequently, even routinely, violated
by a large portion of otherwise law abiding citizens, which, by the way,
is exactly what happened during the alcohol prohibition!
Kentucky use to have a Helmet law, which was repealed just a couple
years ago. Therefore, the people didn't like the helmet laws.
> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
> thinking that they are commonly held.
>
> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
> "we" want to nullify.
Mr. Tyrebiter! You do it again! The imposible question again! If
you'd had done it only once, as you did above, I would not have been
suspicious of your intent. If you'd had done it twice, phrased in much
the same way, I'd not have been necessarly suspicious. But, to do it
twice in a row, the Same Impossible Question, only phrased in an
entirely different way?
pro...@my-deja.com
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
> > >
> > > I think you are wrong.
> > >
> > > I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
> > > wind of popular opinion.
> > >
> > > Can you name a law you think people don't like?
> > >
> > > mistake of thinking that they are commonly held.
> > >
> > > But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
> > > think "we" want to nullify.
> >
> > their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
> > Something must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to
> > juries about jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The
> > probabilities suggest that it wouldn't take much for jury
> > nullification to have an impact.
>
> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
Exactly!!! So, why worry about it? If they don't support it, they
won't nullify it. If they nullify it, they Must support it!!! So, why
should it disturb anybody that the Jury has the Right to Nullify the
charges?
> > Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
>
> No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
> wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
I believe, Mr. Tyrebiter, you are now pulling your "Out" with your
"Impossible Question". Your question: "Can you name a law you think
people don't like?" is impossible to answer due to the fact that while
it's law, no vote has YET been taken to determine any validity. AND,
the instant such vote is taken and passed, it is no longer law, and you
automatically disqualify it as a valid answer.
You could have asked: "Can you name a law the people didn't like?"
To which I gave you the example of Kentucky repealing the Helmet law.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:47:45 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
><tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike
>><logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cmgn7sg08mhruadr6...@4ax.com>,
>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:19:08 GMT, Mildred Pierce
>>>> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
>>>> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
>>>> >laws who clog it.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
>>>> of popular opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>>>>
>>>> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
>>>> thinking that they are commonly held.
>>>>
>>>> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
>>>> "we" want to nullify.
>>>>
>>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>>>
>>> Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The founders, in
>>>their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification. Something
>>>must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>>>jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities suggest
>>>that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>>
>>Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>>
>
>Less than 10% of the people in the US support anti-drug laws.
That seems unlikely. Look, I'm sympathetic. I think reality is just a
crutch for people who can't cope with hard drugs, and I would rather
have a bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy (Tom Waits),
but this seems really wrong.
>It should be eazy to fine one out of 12 that doesn't support drug laws
>if the jurys weren't stacked by the government.
They couldn't spot me in a million years. Dare to be square is my
current modus. But I think if faced with a drug trial, I would
probably decide as the law dictates. Because I think the majority has
the right to make such laws.
And how typical can I even be? Hell, I feel SORRY for people who've
never gotten to take LSD (before the street stuff became dangerously
unreliable). But surely I'm weird - right? Not typical - right?
>
>>>
>>> Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
>>
>>No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
>>wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
>>
>
>Does the public support laws against pot? The public doesn't get what
>it wants laws are written to give government more power and to employ
>more people by government not because they are what the people want.
I favor decriminalizing smoking dope (though I think smoking dope is
bad for you). But surely it's just me. I am weird. You sound weird
too. But the public - aren't they a bunch of straight weenie fink
grinds getting the laws they want?
>
>> Now, imagine
>>>being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to tell
>>>the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
>>>injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors knew
>>>their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws. Maybe
>>>more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
>>>power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that this
>>>country needs.
>>
>>I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
>>
>
>I think that you overestimate how many laws are supported by anyone
>except government.
>
>>There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>>juror, even if you disagree with it.
>>
>
>To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you disagree
>with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
should be.
I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the process we
use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative ways of
making laws.
But maybe they better have damned good proof.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
It is not what you look like it is what you answer. If the trial is
about guns they only want people who belong to HCI. If it is about
drugs then they only want Southern Batist who blieve that hanging is
too good for pot smokers.
>And how typical can I even be? Hell, I feel SORRY for people who've
>never gotten to take LSD (before the street stuff became dangerously
>unreliable). But surely I'm weird - right? Not typical - right?
>
No you are typical. Never take anyting (LSD) that wasn't made by the
White Rabbit or Leary.<g>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
>>>
>>>No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
>>>wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
>>>
>>
>>Does the public support laws against pot? The public doesn't get what
>>it wants laws are written to give government more power and to employ
>>more people by government not because they are what the people want.
>
>I favor decriminalizing smoking dope (though I think smoking dope is
>bad for you). But surely it's just me. I am weird. You sound weird
>too. But the public - aren't they a bunch of straight weenie fink
>grinds getting the laws they want?
>
No the public is against laws against pot. (it is bad for you - Univ.
of Miss. studies show that it your hair is going to fall out it will
happen faster if you smoke pot -- BTW that is the only negitive they
could come up with after 35 yrs of study and being the only legal
growning in the US.)
>>
>>> Now, imagine
>>>>being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to tell
>>>>the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
>>>>injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors knew
>>>>their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws. Maybe
>>>>more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
>>>>power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that this
>>>>country needs.
>>>
>>>I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
>>>
>>
>>I think that you overestimate how many laws are supported by anyone
>>except government.
>>
>>>There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>>>juror, even if you disagree with it.
>>>
>>
>>To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you disagree
>>with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
>
>I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
>should be.
>
You don't think that it is your duty as a juror to judge both the law
and the crime. That has been the duty of a juror for more than 500
yrs.
>I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
>selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the process we
>use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative ways of
>making laws.
>
Asking questions of a juror (beyond are you realted to the defendant)
is not legal. Denys you a jury of your peers.
>But maybe they better have damned good proof.
>
In the years I have sat on a jury I have used proof to mean I know it
as well as I know the results of a properly run scientific experiment.
All witnesses for the state are lying until they prove to me they are
not. (presumed inocent means presumed to be telling the truth, so
those who disagree with the defendant are presumed to be lying)
If the defense can show me any other way it might have happened (not
most likely happened but could have) then I have a reasonable doubt.
In serving on jurys for the last 30+ yrs. I have voted to convict once
in a criminal trial and twice in a civil trial. And I think that the
averages are too high at that. If one criminal trial in 10 is a
conviction that shows me that the jurors are not doing their duty, or
the state has rigged the trial.
Fl. convicted a guy of multiple murders where the scene was so well
cleaned that the FBI said that the person who did it must be a
criminal investigator. The guy had a hard time reading his name. So
out there somewhere is a murderer and next week they will fry an
inocent man.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
>> > the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
>> > unjust laws who clog it.
>>
>> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>>
>> I think you are wrong.
>>
>> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
>> of popular opinion.
>>
>> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>
> You phrased your question in such a way as to prevent any proveable
>answers with current laws, while providing yourself an out if previous
>laws. With current laws, the only verifiable way to determine the
>people's "likes" is by vote, but once a vote is taken, those laws are no
>longer current! Until the vote is taken, it can't be proved. After the
>vote is taken, it would no longer be law! Not to mention that your
>asking for somebody's opinion rather than the facts. Let's restructure
>your question, and focus only on the facts.
>
> You could have asked: "Can you name a law which people didn't like?
>
> And, as examples of such laws, consider every law which was ever
>repealed. One of which, by the way, was the "Prohibition" of consentual
>alcohol use! Every law which was frequently, even routinely, violated
>by a large portion of otherwise law abiding citizens, which, by the way,
>is exactly what happened during the alcohol prohibition!
>
> Kentucky use to have a Helmet law, which was repealed just a couple
>years ago. Therefore, the people didn't like the helmet laws.
>
>
>> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
>> thinking that they are commonly held.
>>
>> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
>> "we" want to nullify.
>
> Mr. Tyrebiter! You do it again! The imposible question again! If
>you'd had done it only once, as you did above, I would not have been
>suspicious of your intent. If you'd had done it twice, phrased in much
>the same way, I'd not have been necessarly suspicious. But, to do it
>twice in a row, the Same Impossible Question, only phrased in an
>entirely different way?
Well, I'm not playing games. I just happen to think that legislators,
to a large degree, are wishy washy and do what we want.
I think people in general pretty much agree with the BODY of law we
have.
I think the previous poster does not agree with me and I was genuinely
curious about what laws the person thinks are unpopular.
But your point about all the repealed laws is a good one. But then I
would say - well, they got repealed.
Good luck finding subversives on the jury - I just think you might
yell Charge - and find no one is marching behind you on this one.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike
>> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> > Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The
>founders, in
>> >their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
>Something
>> >must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>> >jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities
>suggest
>> >that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>
>> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>
>Again.. It is not juries who nullify laws, it is jurors. It only takes
>one juror out of an entire jury to nullify a law by hanging the case.
>It is not about popular laws, it is about un-just laws. The public can
>easily support un-just laws. If Jury Nullification were about the
>popularity of laws then jury decisions would be decided by majority
>rule.
>
>You would be hard pressed, for example, to randomly choose 12 people
>who all support any un-just law (like marijuana laws) but chances are
>those 12 people would also believe in the just laws (like murder)..
>
>Using this example one can understand why the jury is designed the way
>it is. If it worked the way it was designed then un-just laws would be
>null and void, while the just laws continued to prevail.
Thanks for clearing that up.
What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror thought
were unjust?>
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
pro...@my-deja.com
Well, they may be slightly better than tossing a coin, but then I'm
not always too sure about that. At least a coin could never have any
ulterior motives!
> I think people in general pretty much agree with the BODY of law we
> have.
>
> I think the previous poster does not agree with me and I was
> genuinely curious about what laws the person thinks are unpopular.
>
> But your point about all the repealed laws is a good one. But then I
> would say - well, they got repealed.
But, they wouldn't have got repealed if everybody had just said:
"Well, they gotta be popular cause their 'da law', so why bother.",
would they?
> Good luck finding subversives on the jury
By this, do you mean some popular efforts to repeal certain laws
were subversive in their nature? I'm wondering, which popular effort
to repeal a certain law was subversive in it's nature?
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and the
> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these unjust
> >laws who clog it.
>
No.. I said unjust, there is a difference. Unjust laws can be very
popular. Hitlers laws and actions agains the jews were quite popular
in Nazi Germany. The purpose of jury nullification is not to nullify
un-popular laws, rather it is to nullify un-just laws. This is why a
Jury vote must be unannymous. The popularity of a law might be
reflected in a Jury box where a majority of the jurors might vote in
favor of the law. But it only requires a minority of the jurors to
nullify an un-just law.
It will be the nature that a somewhat large minority will recognize
laws as being un-just (of course sometimes these laws might be un-
popular, but it really is of no circumstance in the issue of Jury
Nullification.) The act of Jury Nullification is there to protect the
minority from the majority!
> I think you are wrong.
Obviously, but this is because you did not understand what I was saying.
> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
> of popular opinion.
>
> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>
> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
> thinking that they are commonly held.
>
> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
> "we" want to nullify.
Again, please understand that I am not talking about what the majority
thinks. I am talking about the act of Jury nullification to protect
the minority from the majority. I think if you were to re-read my post
you would see that you were mistaken in *assuming* that I was talking
about "unpopular" laws, no.. I was talking about "unjust" laws.
If you are going to attack my position please take the time to
understand what my opinion is.
--
-- m.p. -- http://popamericana.com/libertanon -- http://mp3.com/76
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> California and other states have made medical use of dope ok.
>
> SO I'm not sure that that proves that there are laws which are not
> popular.
These laws were changed only by referendum. Why didn't the lawmakers,
who you attest are merely "weather vanes, blowing in the wind of
popular opinion", change these laws themselves. Infact a majority of
lawmakers seem unwilling to recognize that many drug laws are
unpopular. Why is that, George?
Mildred Pierce
this stand out rather than seeming common place. I think if Jury
Nullification were as common place as we would like, the lawmakers
would be changing the laws. While stories like this at first put a
smile on my face, I only end up realizing how sad it is that it does
not happen nearly often enough.
In article <85ht28$spq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> --
> Email blocks all but personal list:
> < http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
>
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The
founders, in
> >their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
Something
> >must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
> >jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities
suggest
> >that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
Again.. It is not juries who nullify laws, it is jurors. It only takes
one juror out of an entire jury to nullify a law by hanging the case.
It is not about popular laws, it is about un-just laws. The public can
easily support un-just laws. If Jury Nullification were about the
popularity of laws then jury decisions would be decided by majority
rule.
You would be hard pressed, for example, to randomly choose 12 people
who all support any un-just law (like marijuana laws) but chances are
those 12 people would also believe in the just laws (like murder)..
Using this example one can understand why the jury is designed the way
it is. If it worked the way it was designed then un-just laws would be
null and void, while the just laws continued to prevail.
--
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
> juror, even if you disagree with it.
If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that says
jurors should throw out bad laws?
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
the
> >> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
unjust
> >> >laws who clog it.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
> >>
> >>
wind
> >> of popular opinion.
> >>
> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
> >>
> >> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake
of
> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
> >>
> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
think
> >> "we" want to nullify.
> >>
> >>
> > Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The founders,
in
> >their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
Something
> >must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
> >jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities
suggest
> >that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>
> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>
> >
>
> No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
> wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
>
> >being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to
tell
> >the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
> >injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors
knew
> >their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws.
Maybe
> >more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
> >power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that
this
> >country needs.
>
> I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
>
> juror, even if you disagree with it.
>
>
What is the argument that you are suggesting? How is a juror
"obeying" the law when he is in the jury room? The juror is deciding,
also, the justification of the law. Are you suggesting that all laws are
just? Are you suggesting that marijuana laws are just? If so, why?
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 07:47:45 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
>
> That seems unlikely. Look, I'm sympathetic. I think reality is just a
> crutch for people who can't cope with hard drugs, and I would rather
> have a bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy (Tom Waits),
> but this seems really wrong.
>
> >It should be eazy to fine one out of 12 that doesn't support drug
laws
> >if the jurys weren't stacked by the government.
>
> They couldn't spot me in a million years. Dare to be square is my
> current modus. But I think if faced with a drug trial, I would
> probably decide as the law dictates. Because I think the majority has
> the right to make such laws.
>
> never gotten to take LSD (before the street stuff became dangerously
> unreliable). But surely I'm weird - right? Not typical - right?
>
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
> >>wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
> >>
> >
what
> >it wants laws are written to give government more power and to employ
> >more people by government not because they are what the people want.
>
> I favor decriminalizing smoking dope (though I think smoking dope is
> bad for you). But surely it's just me. I am weird. You sound weird
> too. But the public - aren't they a bunch of straight weenie fink
> grinds getting the laws they want?
>
> >
> >>>being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to
tell
> >>>the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
> >>>injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors
knew
> >>>their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws.
Maybe
> >>>more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having
the
> >>>power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that
this
> >>>country needs.
> >>
> >>I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
> >>
> >
> >except government.
> >
a
> >>juror, even if you disagree with it.
> >>
> >
> >with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
>
> I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
> should be.
>
> selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the process we
> use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative ways of
> making laws.
>
have severe problems inductively as well. Can you please explain how you
arrived at the above conclusion? I think it can be undermined. Thanks.
:-)
> But maybe they better have damned good proof.
>
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
> >> > the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try
these
> >> > unjust laws who clog it.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
> >>
> >> I think you are wrong.
> >>
> >> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
wind
> >> of popular opinion.
> >>
> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
> >
of
> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
> >>
> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
think
> >> "we" want to nullify.
> >
If
> >you'd had done it only once, as you did above, I would not have been
> >suspicious of your intent. If you'd had done it twice, phrased in
much
> >the same way, I'd not have been necessarly suspicious. But, to do it
> >twice in a row, the Same Impossible Question, only phrased in an
> >entirely different way?
>
> Well, I'm not playing games. I just happen to think that legislators,
> to a large degree, are wishy washy and do what we want.
>
> have.
>
> I think the previous poster does not agree with me and I was genuinely
> curious about what laws the person thinks are unpopular.
>
> But your point about all the repealed laws is a good one. But then I
> would say - well, they got repealed.
>
> yell Charge - and find no one is marching behind you on this one.
>
>
What are your ulterior motives, George? You seem to be an apologist
for big brother. "Subversives" - what a dysphemistic, big- brother term.
Too bad there weren't more subversives in Nazi Germany. How can laws
that make criminals out of pot smokers be justified? I am coming to the
only conclusion that logic will allow me to arrive at. :-)
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror thought
> were unjust?
hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I'm not
sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
--
-- m.p. -- http://popamericana.com/libertanon -- http://mp3.com/76
Andy Katz
<mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>These laws were changed only by referendum. Why didn't the lawmakers,
>who you attest are merely "weather vanes, blowing in the wind of
>popular opinion", change these laws themselves. Infact a majority of
>lawmakers seem unwilling to recognize that many drug laws are
>unpopular. Why is that, George?
Permit me to step in here and say that for pols it's a total
no-brainer. They support mmj or general decrim and the first time some
kid fucks up while high, the media's going to be in their faces about
it. It's even happened to Johnson already, and quite inappropriately
(since Johnson made his proposals as a means to stop the kind of
behavior in question).
Also the decrim/mmj movement doesn't have the kind of bucks the
pharmaceutical industry has to spend on lobbying for enhanced drug
testing. As generalized workplace drug testing is shown to be less
cost-effective than promised, the lobby dollars may trickle down and
pols rediscover their backbones.
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <jssq7s4kar0o1nhfu...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror thought
>> were unjust?
>
>hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I'm not
>sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
too lazy to backup snippage, but I thought you argued that our form of
govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when they feel the law
is unjust.'
Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good idea,
or do you think it is part of our system of government, intended by
the Big Fathers as what should happen?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
......
>> >
>> >To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you disagree
>> >with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
>>
>> I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
>> should be.
>>
>> I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
>> selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the process we
>> use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative ways of
>> making laws.
>>
> This argument is not a deductively valid argument. It appears to
>have severe problems inductively as well. Can you please explain how you
>arrived at the above conclusion? I think it can be undermined. Thanks.
A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better results
than a system in which they sometimes lie.
A system in which we feel that we are free not to obey laws will lead
to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law breaking
which will lead to bad results.
Act as if the maxim of your will were a universal law, or, what if
everyone did it?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike
>> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <cmgn7sg08mhruadr6...@4ax.com>,
>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:19:08 GMT, Mildred Pierce
>> >> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
>the
>> >> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
>unjust
>> >> >laws who clog it.
>> >>
>> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>> >>
>> >> I think you are wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
>wind
>> >> of popular opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>> >>
>> >> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake
>of
>> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
>> >>
>> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
>think
>> >> "we" want to nullify.
>> >>
>> >> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>> >>
>> > Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The founders,
>in
>> >their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
>Something
>> >must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>> >jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities
>suggest
>> >that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>>
>> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>>
>> >
>> > Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
>>
>> No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
>> wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
>>
>> Now, imagine
>> >being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to
>tell
>> >the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
>> >injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors
>knew
>> >their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws.
>Maybe
>> >more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
>> >power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that
>this
>> >country needs.
>>
>> I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
>>
>> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>> juror, even if you disagree with it.
>>
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
> What is the argument that you are suggesting? How is a juror
>"obeying" the law when he is in the jury room? The juror is deciding,
>also, the justification of the law. Are you suggesting that all laws are
>just? Are you suggesting that marijuana laws are just? If so, why?
We have a moral obligation to obey law, because otherwise there would
be a lot of lawbreaking, leading to bad things.
A juror obeys law when a statute says: if you do X, then you pay a
price Y, and X was done, and the juror says: guilty.
The juror can decide the justification of the law, but so can the
citizen in his everyday life.
I do not think dope laws are all just.
I think it takes two to tango - buyer and seller - and that it is more
the buyer at fault, so why stick seller with a zillion years?
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <rsop7schu33fre353...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:34:23 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
>> >> > the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try
>these
>> >> > unjust laws who clog it.
>> >>
>> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>> >>
>> >> I think you are wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
>wind
>> >> of popular opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>> >
>> >> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake
>of
>> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
>> >>
>> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
>think
>> >> "we" want to nullify.
>> >
>> > Mr. Tyrebiter! You do it again! The imposible question again!
>If
>> >you'd had done it only once, as you did above, I would not have been
>> >suspicious of your intent. If you'd had done it twice, phrased in
>much
>> >the same way, I'd not have been necessarly suspicious. But, to do it
>> >twice in a row, the Same Impossible Question, only phrased in an
>> >entirely different way?
>>
>> Well, I'm not playing games. I just happen to think that legislators,
>> to a large degree, are wishy washy and do what we want.
>>
>> I think people in general pretty much agree with the BODY of law we
>> have.
>>
>> I think the previous poster does not agree with me and I was genuinely
>> curious about what laws the person thinks are unpopular.
>>
>> But your point about all the repealed laws is a good one. But then I
>> would say - well, they got repealed.
>>
>> Good luck finding subversives on the jury - I just think you might
>> yell Charge - and find no one is marching behind you on this one.
>>
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
> What are your ulterior motives, George? You seem to be an apologist
>for big brother.
I would say an apologist for the rule of law.
Or for civilization.
"Subversives" - what a dysphemistic, big- brother term.
>Too bad there weren't more subversives in Nazi Germany. How can laws
>that make criminals out of pot smokers be justified?
They are procedurally justified, and rationally based. Smoking dope is
bad for you. I know this for a fact, and from research. Laws validly
passed, with rational bases, aren't like nazi laws.
I am coming to the
>only conclusion that logic will allow me to arrive at. :-)
>
No, logic allows you a wider range of conclusions.
Michael Zarlenga
: Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good idea,
: or do you think it is part of our system of government, intended by
: the Big Fathers as what should happen?
You tell me...
"For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta,
in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American
constitutional law, than that: in criminal cases, it is not only the
right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their
right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the
law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or
oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
execution of such laws. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it
is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" --a
barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government-- they
are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any
injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed."
--Lysander Spooner, 1852
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy." -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
-Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and
fact." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be
decided." -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
-U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)
Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: "I
consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which
a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given
by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... and the courts must abide by
that decision." --- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
"The right of the jury to decide questions of law
was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams
stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judges's
instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles:
'It is not only ...[the trial juror's] right, but his
duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own
best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct
opposition to the direction of the court.'
There is much evidence of the general acceptance of
this principle in the period immediatly after the Constitution
was adopted."
("The Changing Role of the Jury in the 19th Century",
Yale Law Review 74, 174(1964)
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
"We were repeatedly told (by "Late Show" staff) to put our politics
aside -- this is a comedy show. No booing, no shouting....and if you
don't listen to us you can talk to the Secret Service..."
Free Speech, Hillary Clinton-style
Michael Zarlenga
: than a system in which they sometimes lie.
A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right
of jurors since the beginning of the nation will lead
to better results than a corrupt, self-serving system.
: A system in which we feel that we are free not to obey laws will lead
: to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law breaking
: which will lead to bad results.
Civil disobedience is as American as apple pie.
D. Jones
> In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
> > juror, even if you disagree with it.
>
> If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
> claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that says
> jurors should throw out bad laws?
>
The Georgia Constitution allows for it's juror's to vote how tell feel
about a law. For instance if you think people should be allowed to use
drugs then you can vote not-guilty regardless of how the case is
presented... I'll look it up and provide the Article..etc.
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> ......
> >> >
> >> >To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you
disagree
> >> >with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
> >>
> >> I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
> >> should be.
> >>
> >> I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
> >> selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the process
we
> >> use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative ways
of
> >> making laws.
> >>
> > This argument is not a deductively valid argument. It appears
to
> >have severe problems inductively as well. Can you please explain how
you
> >arrived at the above conclusion? I think it can be undermined.
Thanks.
>
> than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>
right to ask jurors the questions that you are referring to. Is this the
system you want to respect, George? The prosecutors are breaking the
law. What's the point, George?
> A system in which we feel that we are free not to obey laws will lead
> to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law breaking
> which will lead to bad results.
>
authoritarianism and rigidity, George. This violates the whole spirit of
the law. Again, if we are going to imprison pot smokers, then does the
legal system deserve our respect?
> Act as if the maxim of your will were a universal law, or, what if
> everyone did it?
> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jssq7s4kar0o1nhfu...@4ax.com>,
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> were unjust?
> >
> >hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I'm not
> >sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
>
> too lazy to backup snippage, but I thought you argued that our form of
> govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when they feel the law
> is unjust.'
>
> or do you think it is part of our system of government, intended by
> the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>
>
What kind of a question is that, George? Please stop the ad hominem
attacks. Let him make the argument for jury nullification. Why does what
only the founders say appear to be sacred? Don't stop Mildred from
being or becoming a great person. You have no right to bitch about
certain problems in this country because you are part of the problem.
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <cmgn7sg08mhruadr6...@4ax.com>,
> >> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers
and
> >the
> >> >> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
> >unjust
> >> >> >laws who clog it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you are wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
> >wind
> >> >> of popular opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
> >> >>
mistake
> >of
> >> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
> >> >>
> >> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
> >think
> >> >> "we" want to nullify.
> >> >>
a
> >> juror, even if you disagree with it.
> >>
> >>
> > What is the argument that you are suggesting? How is a juror
> >"obeying" the law when he is in the jury room? The juror is deciding,
> >also, the justification of the law. Are you suggesting that all laws
are
> >just? Are you suggesting that marijuana laws are just? If so, why?
>
> We have a moral obligation to obey law, because otherwise there would
> be a lot of lawbreaking, leading to bad things.
>
be a lot of injustices ( Nazism) , leading to bad things.
> A juror obeys law when a statute says: if you do X, then you pay a
> price Y, and X was done, and the juror says: guilty.
>
> The juror can decide the justification of the law, but so can the
> citizen in his everyday life.
>
> I do not think dope laws are all just.
>
> I think it takes two to tango - buyer and seller - and that it is more
> the buyer at fault, so why stick seller with a zillion years?
>
> >
> >
>
Are you saying that some dope laws are just? Why is the buyer at
fault? So, you don't believe in voluntary action? Why stick either one
in jail? America is getting what it deserves in that, through our
collective brilliance, we get to release dangerous criminals from the
prisons in order to fight the drug war.
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rsop7schu33fre353...@4ax.com>,
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers
and
> >> >> > the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try
> >these
> >> >> > unjust laws who clog it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you are wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
> >wind
> >> >> of popular opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
> >> >
mistake
> >of
> >> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
> >> >>
> >> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
> >think
> >> >> "we" want to nullify.
> >> >
> >If
> >> >you'd had done it only once, as you did above, I would not have
been
> >> >suspicious of your intent. If you'd had done it twice, phrased in
> >much
> >> >the same way, I'd not have been necessarly suspicious. But, to do
it
> >> >twice in a row, the Same Impossible Question, only phrased in an
> >> >entirely different way?
> >>
> >> Well, I'm not playing games. I just happen to think that
legislators,
> >> to a large degree, are wishy washy and do what we want.
> >>
> >> I think people in general pretty much agree with the BODY of law we
> >> have.
> >>
> >> I think the previous poster does not agree with me and I was
genuinely
> >> curious about what laws the person thinks are unpopular.
> >>
> >> But your point about all the repealed laws is a good one. But then
I
> >> would say - well, they got repealed.
> >>
> >> Good luck finding subversives on the jury - I just think you might
> >> yell Charge - and find no one is marching behind you on this one.
> >>
> >>
> > What are your ulterior motives, George? You seem to be an
apologist
> >for big brother.
>
> I would say an apologist for the rule of law.
>
> Or for civilization.
>
> "Subversives" - what a dysphemistic, big- brother term.
> >Too bad there weren't more subversives in Nazi Germany. How can laws
> >that make criminals out of pot smokers be justified?
>
> They are procedurally justified, and rationally based. Smoking dope is
> bad for you. I know this for a fact, and from research. Laws validly
> passed, with rational bases, aren't like nazi laws.
>
> I am coming to the
> >only conclusion that logic will allow me to arrive at. :-)
> >
> No, logic allows you a wider range of conclusions.
>
> >
into line drawing. You do have a point, though. So, how did you decide
that it was the purpose of the law to protect persons from themselves?
You are right. Gosh, I should have selected the other horn of the
dilemma. In other words, I should have been advocating the prohibition
of tobacco and alcohol. These drugs can be bad for you. Yes, there are
other alternatives. :-)
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>In alt.law-enforcement George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>: A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better results
>: than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>
>A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right
>of jurors since the beginning of the nation will lead
>to better results than a corrupt, self-serving system.
But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than the
Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the right to
disobey the law. In addition, our legal system is probably far LESS
corrupt than anyone could ever have imagined possible. It is
PECULIARLY free of corruption, as far as I can tell.
>
>
>: A system in which we feel that we are free not to obey laws will lead
>: to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law breaking
>: which will lead to bad results.
>
>Civil disobedience is as American as apple pie.
But Martin Luther King did not object to being punished. He knew that
it was his moral duty to ACCEPT the legal punishment.
He simply wanted to demonstrate that the law led to bad results so
that it would be changed.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>In alt.law-enforcement George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>: Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good idea,
>: or do you think it is part of our system of government, intended by
>: the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>
>You tell me...
>
>
> "For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta,
>in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American
>constitutional law, than that: in criminal cases, it is not only the
>right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
>and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their
>right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the
>law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or
>oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
>execution of such laws. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it
>is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" --a
>barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government-- they
>are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any
>injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed."
>
> --Lysander Spooner, 1852
I don't think Lysander Spooner is one of those Big Fathers I referred
to. I meant the wise guys who wrote our constitution. But I concede
the importance of the centuries of common law, yet I don't recall
seeing that it found a right of jurors to act contrary to law.
But I agree that that is probably part of what might have motivated
the development of juries. But then I would point out that the kind of
tyranny and opprssion faced back in that common law was likely on a
different order of magnitude than our current laws produce. NOW, as
opposed to olden times, we have procedural safeguards to block such
laws from passage. So now, as opposed to when folks had no say in
govt, there is rightly a big burden for you to prevail when you
conclude that laws are part of tyranny etc.
>
>"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
>controversy." -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
I think you have misconstrued what he means. Exactly what the law
means is often debatable. It is one thing to come up with your BEST
GUESS as to what the law really means, and quite another to try to
REJECT that best guess as to what it means. I bet that if you read
more of Mr. Jay you will find that my hunch on what he meant is
correct. Though I do not know that for a fact. Just my guess.
>
>"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
> -Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796
>
Same point.
>
>"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and
>fact." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902
>
>
Same point.
>"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be
>decided." -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941
It is hard to know what he meant by this, of course. That a law may be
on trial may mean that it is not clear whether it will lead to a good
result, etc, and have nothing to do with whether a juror has a moral
right to disregard it.
>
>
>"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
>prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
> -U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)
>
In order to do what the law really requires, instead of the erroneous
view in violation of the law?
I will try to find the opinion to resolve the ambiguity. It's old, and
an appellate case - so it may be hard to get on the internet. But I
will try.
>
> Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: "I
> consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which
> a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
>
Again - so that they can not send a man to jail unless the facts prove
he really did the bad deed? So this does not support your assertion
since it is consistent with my view too.
>
>"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
>of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given
>by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... and the courts must abide by
>that decision." --- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
> 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
I too recognize their undisputed power. I also recognize the
undisputed power of a judge to corruptly find a man innocent,
precluding future prosecution. What a juror has the power to do, and
what he ought to do, are two different things.
>
>
> "The right of the jury to decide questions of law
> was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams
> stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judges's
> instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles:
> 'It is not only ...[the trial juror's] right, but his
> duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own
> best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct
> opposition to the direction of the court.'
In this the person says that the juror should do what the law REALLY
says rather than what the judge says it says? Is that what the person
means?
It does not say the juror should MAKE the law, or strike down laws. It
merely says that the juror should be independent of the instructions
of the judge, though the word "conscience" seems to lead your way.
> There is much evidence of the general acceptance of
> this principle in the period immediatly after the Constitution
> was adopted."
> ("The Changing Role of the Jury in the 19th Century",
> Yale Law Review 74, 174(1964)
You had one clear statement in support of a juror having a moral right
to ignore the dictates of law - that Spooner fellow.
You had one rather suggestive quote - with the word "conscience."
All the other quotes are consistent with my view, as well as with
yours.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <olqr7s4gsu6oao5av...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:50:51 GMT, Mildred Pierce
>> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <jssq7s4kar0o1nhfu...@4ax.com>,
>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror thought
>> >> were unjust?
>> >
>> >hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I'm not
>> >sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
>>
>> too lazy to backup snippage, but I thought you argued that our form of
>> govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when they feel the law
>> is unjust.'
>>
>> Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good idea,
>> or do you think it is part of our system of government, intended by
>> the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>>
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
> What kind of a question is that, George? Please stop the ad hominem
>attacks. Let him make the argument for jury nullification. Why does what
> only the founders say appear to be sacred?
Because the rule of law is important. By following laws, instead of
what we each think is right, we are protected from the tyranny that
will surely follow when someone things that their notion of right
means that we should go to jail.
A system of laws, reached through procedures which are fair and just,
is our only protection from tyranny - though it does not offer total
protection.
Don't stop Mildred from
>being or becoming a great person. You have no right to bitch about
>certain problems in this country because you are part of the problem.
>:-)
I am a camera.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <mgqr7s4km8epvc9ji...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:07:54 GMT, Logical Pike
>> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> ......
>> >> >
>> >> >To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you
>disagree
>> >> >with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
>> >>
>> >> I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
>> >> should be.
>> >>
>> >> I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
>> >> selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the process
>we
>> >> use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative ways
>of
>> >> making laws.
>> >>
>> > This argument is not a deductively valid argument. It appears
>to
>> >have severe problems inductively as well. Can you please explain how
>you
>> >arrived at the above conclusion? I think it can be undermined.
>Thanks.
>>
>> A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better results
>> than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>>
> This begs the whole question about the authorities having the
>right to ask jurors the questions that you are referring to.
Authorities need to ask questions to find out if jurors are free of
conflicts and so on. The notion of letting the two sides bump jurors
for almost any reason? Maybe not so smart, but not a corrupt notion.
Is this the
>system you want to respect, George? The prosecutors are breaking the
>law. What's the point, George?
I worry prosecutors have unchecked powers which can lead to
corruption. But fixing that does not require throwing the baby out
with the bath water.
>> A system in which we feel that we are free not to obey laws will lead
>> to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law breaking
>> which will lead to bad results.
>>
> Too bad the Nazi soldiers didn't question their laws. This is
>authoritarianism and rigidity, George.
It is respect for our system of authority, which has demonstrated that
it deserves our respect. Nazi Germany showed it did not deserve our
respect.
This is a good place, proven by the fact that few leave it and many
try to join it.
This violates the whole spirit of
>the law. Again, if we are going to imprison pot smokers, then does the
>legal system deserve our respect?
No legal system will do only that which you think is wise. Pot smokers
are not typically jailed (I smoked pot pretty openly in public for
many years and only once did the authorities try to bust me - with a
one hundred dollar fine maximum - and I beat the rap because they did
not follow constitutionally permitted methods to search my pockets for
the dope). If pot smokers were sent to jail for long terms, that would
erode my support for our system. That so many folks get such draconian
terms for selling drugs does erode the legitimacy of the govt to a
degree in my mind. But on the whole the system seems still pretty
legit to me. YOu are correct that I could turn against the state. So
far it has not gotten so bad as to make me feel that way.
>> Act as if the maxim of your will were a universal law, or, what if
>> everyone did it?
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
> Straight from Kant. :-)
WHy if nobody fought in the war, Sir, then I would be a damned fool to
- I'd be the only one and get killed for sure.
Catch 22.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Marissa
> When we are talking about clogging the courts we are talking about
> using methods such as jury nullification to overturn laws. Juries
> nullifying laws would cause the courts the become clogged with
> cases
> dealing with laws that the general public would not like. Jury
> Nullification is SUPPOSED to clog the system because that gives
> lawmakers an incentive to change the laws to reflect the public's
> wishes. The law machine is not supposed to work seamlessly, it can
> only work that way if the public does not have a say in the matter
> of
> what is good law and what is bad law. The main purpose of the
> jury is
> to decide on the law, not on the facts of the case being tried.
> Certainly you would not have to bring in a jury to decide facts.
> Scientists are best at deciding facts. The jury is there because
> it
> represents the public.
You are so right.....
check out the great site below:
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>
>> When we are talking about clogging the courts we are talking about
>> using methods such as jury nullification to overturn laws. Juries
>> nullifying laws would cause the courts the become clogged with
>> cases
>> dealing with laws that the general public would not like. Jury
>> Nullification is SUPPOSED to clog the system because that gives
>> lawmakers an incentive to change the laws to reflect the public's
>> wishes. The law machine is not supposed to work seamlessly, it can
>> only work that way if the public does not have a say in the matter
>> of
>> what is good law and what is bad law. The main purpose of the
>> jury is
>> to decide on the law, not on the facts of the case being tried.
>> Certainly you would not have to bring in a jury to decide facts.
>> Scientists are best at deciding facts. The jury is there because
>> it
>> represents the public.
>
>
> You are so right.....
>
> check out the great site below:
>
> http://maxpages.com/jurynull/
>
If jurors should act contrary to law, shouldn't judges? Police?
Citizens? Legislators? Doctors?
The idea that we should ignore laws we think are unjust would likely
lead to a big mess.
Legislatures make the laws, not Judges, jurors, cops. If the
legislative process turns into a Nazi Germany - then that's one thing.
If it does its job pretty much fairly, legitimately, with results that
are pretty much what you would expect in a democracy, then that's
another story.
The idea that we should pick and choose our laws is the proverbial
road to hell paved with good intentions.
>
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better
>> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>> >
>> > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of jurors
>> > since the beginning of the nation will lead to better results than
>> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
>>
>> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
>> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
>> right to disobey the law.
>
> But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right to
face his accusers.
It is the right of
>a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
>judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
>the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the law
violate it.
A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are doing.
Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may be done by
"right."
Might does not make right.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Martin McPhillips
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:37 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better
>>> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>>> >
>>> > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of jurors
>>> > since the beginning of the nation will lead to better results than
>>> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
>>>
>>> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
>>> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
>>> right to disobey the law.
>>
>> But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>
>There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
The juror has a greater power: he decides the facts that
face the law.
>Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right to
>face his accusers.
What a lame comparative.
> It is the right of
>>a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
>>judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
>>the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
>
>You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the law
>violate it.
>
>A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
>
>If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are doing.
>Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may be done by
>"right."
>
>Might does not make right.
Such sing-song blather.
That your mind is so diseased and corrupt, Tyrebiter, is the source
of your confusion. You talk like a man with a paper asshole.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>In alt.law-enforcement George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>: The idea that we should pick and choose our laws is the proverbial
>: road to hell paved with good intentions.
>
>I dunno, George, I think the idea that we should all blindly
>obey any and all laws that come from the legislature, no matter
>what, is a lot closer to your proverbial road to Hell.
So a judge, for instance, should make decisions contrary to the law as
the legislature wrote it? Isn't that exactly what conservatives
complain about all the time as bad?
Our freedom comes from the procedures we have set up to safeguard our
freedoms. If we ignore the rule of law, and replace it with doing what
we think is right, then we will have the govt doing what IT thinks is
right, and that will lead to tyranny. I assume you agree with that.
I suppose a juror doing what he thinks is right, contrary to law, is
not as dangerous as the govt doing it.
But if you accept the legitimacy of the processes protecting our
freedoms, providing a good society for us, and some societies do not
deserve that acceptance even though their processes look good,
formally, then saying it is ok for people to ignore laws they don't
like risks destroying a good deal.
But I agree that some societies suck and should be resisted.
Bertrand Russell combined our two views this way, by saying something
like: I do not complain when I am punished for breaking the law. I
only complain when I am not permitted to break the law.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good
>> > > idea, or do you think it is part of our system of government,
>> > > intended by the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>> >
>> > You tell me...
>> >
>> > "For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta,
>> > in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or
>> > American constitutional law, than that: in criminal cases, it is
>> > not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts,
>> > what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but
>> > that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty,
>> > to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that
>> > are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons
>> > guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of such laws.
>> > Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that,
>> > instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" --a barrier
>> > against the tyranny and oppression of the government-- they are
>> > really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any
>> > injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed."
>>
>> I don't think Lysander Spooner is one of those Big Fathers I referred
>> to. I meant the wise guys who wrote our constitution. But I concede
>> the importance of the centuries of common law, yet I don't recall
>> seeing that it found a right of jurors to act contrary to law.
>
> But, it IS NOT contrary to law for jurors to "to judge the justice of
>the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust
>or oppressive,
Ok. I think it is, in general, immoral for a Juror to do that, just as
it would be immoral for a Judge to make a decision contrary to law,
even though he could get away with it, legally.
A Supreme Court justice can make decisions which are not legal - and
his decision is completely legal, I guess. But do you urge such
justices to ignore the law, and make decisions they know to violate
it?
Same with jurors.
and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
>execution of such laws." In fact, it's their duty.
No. It is the duty of the juror, the Judge, the Supreme Court justice
to decide consistent with the law. Even if it is "legal" for them to
decide contrary to the law. I.e., the POWER to act contrary to law is
not the RIGHT to do so.>
>
>> But I agree that that is probably part of what might have motivated
......
>
>> So now, as opposed to when folks had no say in govt, there is rightly
>> a big burden for you to prevail when you conclude that laws are part
>> of tyranny etc.
>
> But, aren't you now arguing against "folks" having just such "say"?
I think it is ok to violate a law (decide contrary to) requiring Jews
to be killed, in a tyrannical government, but it is not ok to violate
a law in a nation with a legitimate government, where laws are fairly
determined, based on procedures likely to lead to pretty good results.
I may not think that a 12 percent tariff on imported bows and arrows
is wise. I do not have a right to decide to repeal that law on my own.
Legislatures are the proper forum to make law, and judges and jurors
should not make up the laws themselves instead.
>
>
>> > "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact
>> > in controversy."
>> > -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
>>
>> I think you have misconstrued what he means. Exactly what the law
>> means is often debatable.
>
> The dictates of a law are rarely debateable, while the justice of a
>law is always debateable.
So what? I repeat: I think you have misconstrued what he means.
...
>I do not believe he misconstrued was John Jay was saying in the least.
>
I do. Especially since the only clear statement for his view which he
could find, searching throughout our history apparently, was the
statement by Spooner. If the law was as you construe it, you would be
able to find statements which say it unambiguously. Only Spooner said
something I could not have said as well. How come? Because my view of
what these people mean is probably correct - that would be my guess.
>
>> > "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to
>> > be decided."
>> > -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941
>>
>> It is hard to know what he meant by this, of course. That a law may
>> be on trial may mean that it is not clear whether it will lead to a
>> good result, etc, and have nothing to do with whether a juror has a
>> moral right to disregard it.
>
> Maybe it's just harder to work your way around this one. Maybe what
>you try to label as "a juror having the moral right to disregard law" is
>in reality "a juror having the Right to place the law itself on trial".
Look - if Jurors had the right you allude to - there would be clear,
rather than ambiguous, statements of the right.
You have only one such clear statement - this Spooner guy. Period. SO
far.
>
>> > Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: "I
>> > consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by
>> > which a government can be held to the principles of its
>> > constitution."
>>
>> Again - so that they can not send a man to jail unless the facts
>> prove he really did the bad deed? So this does not support your
>> assertion since it is consistent with my view too.
>
> But, Jefferson clearly says "government can be held", which clearly
>refutes your assertion since it is not consistant with your view.
I think laws hold government to its principles. The fourth amendment
holds the govt away from searching my home absent a warrant, etc. THis
does NOT state what you assert. You merely think that it MIGHT support
your view. Find something which just says it - or admit that you can
find no such comment.
>
>> > "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
>> > power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
>> > law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... and the
>> > courts must abide by that decision."
>> > --- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
>> > 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
>>
>> I too recognize their undisputed power. I also recognize the
>> undisputed power of a judge to corruptly find a man innocent,
>> precluding future prosecution. What a juror has the power to do,
>> and what he ought to do, are two different things.
>
> But, aren't you arguing to remove the juror's "Right" to do what he
>"Ought" to do,
I am saying he has no such right. He can GET AWAY with it. Might does
not make right. So having POWER does not mean that you have the RIGHT
to violate the dictates of the law. I do not propose that we arrest
jurors for jury nullification. More trouble than it's worth, and it
risks taking away from juries their independence of govt. But that
does NOT mean jurors have a RIGHT to nullify, nor that it is moral for
them to do it. A judge can corruptly decide, to up the odds he can go
to bed with a clearly guilty but very pretty defendant - but that is
not the same as him having the RIGHT to do it.
to judge the law as well as the defendant? Yes! You
>are!
>
>
>> > "The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely
>> > recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated
>> > unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judges's instruction on
>> > the law if it violates fundamental principles: 'It is not only
>> > ...[the trial juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find
>> > the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and
>> > conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the
>> > court.'
>>
>> In this the person says that the juror should do what the law REALLY
>> says rather than what the judge says it says? Is that what the person
>> means?
>
> No. The person clearly says: "a juror should ignore a judges's
>instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles". It is
>assumed the judge's or the court's instructions IS the law in this case.
WHo says? You are reading intot he statement something that may, or
may not, be intended. Find something which just comes out and says -
Jurors have a right to violate the dictates of laws they consider
unjust. Not ambiguous comment.
>
>
>> It does not say the juror should MAKE the law, or strike down laws.
>
> No, it says they should judge the fundamental principles of the laws,
>and considering their judgment could ONLY relate to the case at hand,
>this clearly means the jury should judge the fundamental principles of
>the laws as applied to their case at hand, as well as the case itself.
Great. YOu say the juror should obey the law, even if the Judge gets
it screwed up. Fine with me.
>
>
>> > "There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle
>> > in the period immediatly after the Constitution was adopted."
>> > ("The Changing Role of the Jury in the 19th Century",
>> > Yale Law Review 74, 174(1964)
>>
>> You had one clear statement in support of a juror having a moral
>> right to ignore the dictates of law - that Spooner fellow.
>>
>> You had one rather suggestive quote - with the word "conscience."
>>
>> All the other quotes are consistent with my view, as well as with
>> yours.
>
> This is because you have taken a point of view which is not in
>opposition to his assertion, while trying to suggest that unless he can
>disprove your "point of view", his assertion is false.
Your quotes are ambiguous.
>
> He's saying: "Jurors have the right to judge laws."
>
I.e., they have the right to figure out what the law means, as it
applies to facts. A guy is arrested for dope, and the law bans having
dope. Can the juror vote innocent? No. But the juror can decide what
dope is - whether seeds count as dope, since they lack THC. Etc.
See?
> You're saying: "Jurors may not violate laws."
>
> Sort of like me saying "Red Light + Green Light = Yellow Light", then
>you trying to refute this by saying: "No, the sky is Blue!". No matter
>how much evidence I might have to prove "Red Light + Green Light =
>Yellow Light", you'd still try to clame I was wrong by saying "But, the
>sky is still blue".
No
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message ...
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:37 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>>> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>Might does not make right.
>
>
>Such sing-song blather.
>
>That your mind is so diseased and corrupt, Tyrebiter, is the source
>of your confusion. You talk like a man with a paper asshole.
Martin - this is a real discussion.
Come back later, when the adults are done. OK?
>
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror
>> > > > > thought were unjust?
>> > > >
>> > > > hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
>> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
>> > >
>> > > too lazy to backup snippage, but I thought you argued that our
>> > > form of govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when they
>> > > feel the law is unjust.'
>> > >
>> > > Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good
>> > > idea, or do you think it is part of our system of government,
>> > > intended by the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>> >
>> > What kind of a question is that, George? Please stop the ad hominem
>> > attacks. Let him make the argument for jury nullification. Why does
>> > what only the founders say appear to be sacred?
>>
>> Because the rule of law is important. By following laws, instead of
>> what we each think is right, we are protected from the tyranny that
>> will surely follow when someone things that their notion of right
>> means that we should go to jail.
>
> True, and Jurors not only have the Right,
Saying it does not make it true. You could with the same logic say
Judges have the right to rule contrary to law.
.......
>> A system of laws, reached through procedures which are fair and just,
>> is our only protection from tyranny
>
> Yet, it appears, you would argue against one of the very processes
>which was designed to keep our laws fair and just, that being "Jury
>Nulification" being the right to judge those very laws as well as the
>defendant.
Jury Nullification was not part of the plan.
You could with the same logic argue the plan was for Judges, and all
officials, to be able to disobey the law.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>> juror, even if you disagree with it.
>
>If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
>claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that says
>jurors should throw out bad laws?
If all officials entrusted to follow the law, including jurors,
judges, Presidents, felt that they are morally permitted to ignore the
law, and replace it with what they think SHOULD be the law, then
respect for the law will collapse. As a result the govt will be free
to base law on who is charged, and the tyranny of a govt with a
"right" to get bad people will be more likely.
Respect for the law leads to more law abiding behavior, generally a
good thing, and is essential for respect for govt, also generally a
good thing in a place with good govt..
And the law that says jurors should throw out bad laws does not exist,
so I don't know how to answer that question.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <387E154D...@spam.com>,
> "D. Jones" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Mildred Pierce wrote:
>>
>> > In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law
>when a
>> > > juror, even if you disagree with it.
>> >
>> > If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
>> > claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that
>says
>> > jurors should throw out bad laws?
>> >
>>
>> The Georgia Constitution allows for it's juror's to vote how tell feel
>> about a law. For instance if you think people should be allowed to use
>> drugs then you can vote not-guilty regardless of how the case is
>> presented... I'll look it up and provide the Article..etc.
>
>This is understood by few tho... Why don't judges tell jurors this
>then? Infact, why do they often tell jurors the opposite? Judges are
>lying to jurors through ommision. It is hardly a suprise tho, because
>they want to maintain their position and maintain the economy built up
>by the judge-lawyer-cop system. It benefits them to have lots of
>innocent people put through the system, of course they are not going to
>tell jurors that they can put a stop to this injustice.
Judges are paid an annual salary, and it is actually in their interest
to have less work rather than more.
Have you gone over the edge to crackpottery here?
Come back, please.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
pro...@my-deja.com
> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
> >
> > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of jurors
> > since the beginning of the nation will lead to better results than
> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
>
> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
> right to disobey the law.
But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law! It is the right of
a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
--
Email blocks all but personal list:
< http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
pro...@my-deja.com
> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good
> > > idea, or do you think it is part of our system of government,
> > > intended by the Big Fathers as what should happen?
> >
> > You tell me...
> >
> > "For more than six hundred years -- that is, since Magna Carta,
> > in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or
> > American constitutional law, than that: in criminal cases, it is
> > not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts,
> > what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but
> > that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty,
> > to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that
> > are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons
> > guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of such laws.
> > Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that,
> > instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" --a barrier
> > against the tyranny and oppression of the government-- they are
> > really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any
> > injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed."
>
> to. I meant the wise guys who wrote our constitution. But I concede
> the importance of the centuries of common law, yet I don't recall
> seeing that it found a right of jurors to act contrary to law.
But, it IS NOT contrary to law for jurors to "to judge the justice of
the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust
or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
execution of such laws." In fact, it's their duty.
> But I agree that that is probably part of what might have motivated
> the development of juries. But then I would point out that the kind
> of tyranny and opprssion faced back in that common law was likely on
> a different order of magnitude than our current laws produce. NOW,
> as opposed to olden times, we have procedural safeguards to block
> such laws from passage.
One of which, it would appear, you are now arguing for the removal
of! Which is like saying: "Hey, this made things better, let's get rid
of it!"
> So now, as opposed to when folks had no say in govt, there is rightly
> a big burden for you to prevail when you conclude that laws are part
> of tyranny etc.
But, aren't you now arguing against "folks" having just such "say"?
> > "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact
> > in controversy."
> > -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
>
> I think you have misconstrued what he means. Exactly what the law
> means is often debatable.
The dictates of a law are rarely debateable, while the justice of a
law is always debateable. For instance, the dictate of a law against
not wearing seatbelts on public highways carrying a fine of $500 is not
debateable. Get caught not wearing seatbelts, and the fine by law is
$500, period. But, the justice of such a law is very much debateable.
I do not believe he misconstrued was John Jay was saying in the least.
> > "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to
> > be decided."
> > -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941
>
> It is hard to know what he meant by this, of course. That a law may
> be on trial may mean that it is not clear whether it will lead to a
> good result, etc, and have nothing to do with whether a juror has a
> moral right to disregard it.
Maybe it's just harder to work your way around this one. Maybe what
you try to label as "a juror having the moral right to disregard law" is
in reality "a juror having the Right to place the law itself on trial".
> > Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: "I
> > consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by
> > which a government can be held to the principles of its
> > constitution."
>
> Again - so that they can not send a man to jail unless the facts
> prove he really did the bad deed? So this does not support your
> assertion since it is consistent with my view too.
But, Jefferson clearly says "government can be held", which clearly
refutes your assertion since it is not consistant with your view.
> > "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
> > power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
> > law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... and the
> > courts must abide by that decision."
> > --- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
> > 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
>
> I too recognize their undisputed power. I also recognize the
> undisputed power of a judge to corruptly find a man innocent,
> precluding future prosecution. What a juror has the power to do,
> and what he ought to do, are two different things.
But, aren't you arguing to remove the juror's "Right" to do what he
"Ought" to do, to judge the law as well as the defendant? Yes! You
are!
> > "The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely
> > recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated
> > unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judges's instruction on
> > the law if it violates fundamental principles: 'It is not only
> > ...[the trial juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find
> > the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and
> > conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the
> > court.'
>
> In this the person says that the juror should do what the law REALLY
> says rather than what the judge says it says? Is that what the person
> means?
No. The person clearly says: "a juror should ignore a judges's
instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles". It is
assumed the judge's or the court's instructions IS the law in this case.
> It does not say the juror should MAKE the law, or strike down laws.
No, it says they should judge the fundamental principles of the laws,
and considering their judgment could ONLY relate to the case at hand,
this clearly means the jury should judge the fundamental principles of
the laws as applied to their case at hand, as well as the case itself.
> > "There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle
> > in the period immediatly after the Constitution was adopted."
> > ("The Changing Role of the Jury in the 19th Century",
> > Yale Law Review 74, 174(1964)
>
> You had one clear statement in support of a juror having a moral
> right to ignore the dictates of law - that Spooner fellow.
>
> You had one rather suggestive quote - with the word "conscience."
>
> All the other quotes are consistent with my view, as well as with
> yours.
This is because you have taken a point of view which is not in
opposition to his assertion, while trying to suggest that unless he can
disprove your "point of view", his assertion is false.
He's saying: "Jurors have the right to judge laws."
You're saying: "Jurors may not violate laws."
Sort of like me saying "Red Light + Green Light = Yellow Light", then
you trying to refute this by saying: "No, the sky is Blue!". No matter
how much evidence I might have to prove "Red Light + Green Light =
Yellow Light", you'd still try to clame I was wrong by saying "But, the
sky is still blue".
--
Michael Zarlenga
: The idea that we should pick and choose our laws is the proverbial
: road to hell paved with good intentions.
I dunno, George, I think the idea that we should all blindly
obey any and all laws that come from the legislature, no matter
what, is a lot closer to your proverbial road to Hell.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Mildred Pierce
"D. Jones" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Mildred Pierce wrote:
>
> > In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> >
when a
> > > juror, even if you disagree with it.
> >
> > If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
> > claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that
says
> > jurors should throw out bad laws?
> >
>
> The Georgia Constitution allows for it's juror's to vote how tell feel
> about a law. For instance if you think people should be allowed to use
> drugs then you can vote not-guilty regardless of how the case is
> presented... I'll look it up and provide the Article..etc.
This is understood by few tho... Why don't judges tell jurors this
then? Infact, why do they often tell jurors the opposite? Judges are
lying to jurors through ommision. It is hardly a suprise tho, because
they want to maintain their position and maintain the economy built up
by the judge-lawyer-cop system. It benefits them to have lots of
innocent people put through the system, of course they are not going to
tell jurors that they can put a stop to this injustice.
--
-- m.p. -- http://popamericana.com/libertanon -- http://mp3.com/76
pro...@my-deja.com
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror
> > > > > thought were unjust?
> > > >
> > > > hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
> > >
> > > too lazy to backup snippage, but I thought you argued that our
> > > form of govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when they
> > > feel the law is unjust.'
> > >
> > > idea, or do you think it is part of our system of government,
> > > intended by the Big Fathers as what should happen?
> >
> > attacks. Let him make the argument for jury nullification. Why does
> > what only the founders say appear to be sacred?
>
> Because the rule of law is important. By following laws, instead of
> what we each think is right, we are protected from the tyranny that
> will surely follow when someone things that their notion of right
> means that we should go to jail.
True, and Jurors not only have the Right, but the Obligation as well,
to place on trial, not only the guilt, or innocence by default, of the
defendant, but they are also Obligated to judge the very laws being
brought up against a defendant.
Laws Bear Witness as to the boundary where behavior changes from
legal to illegal (supposidly by way of a defineable violation of
another's Rights), and as to the penality imposed for such behavior.
Clearly, Laws Bear Witness, and as such, can therefore be confronted and
called into judgment, by either the defendant, the judge, or the jurors.
And, just as with human witnesses, Laws found in perjury can be exiled
(one in prison, the other repealed).
> A system of laws, reached through procedures which are fair and just,
> is our only protection from tyranny
Yet, it appears, you would argue against one of the very processes
which was designed to keep our laws fair and just, that being "Jury
Nulification" being the right to judge those very laws as well as the
defendant.
--
Email blocks all but personal list:
< http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
pro...@my-deja.com
> Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror. If you
> > > > > > disagree with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the
> > > > > laws should be.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
> > > > > selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the
> > > > > process we use to make laws is legitimate and better than the
> > > > > alternative ways of making laws.
> > > >
> > > > This argument is not a deductively valid argument. It appears
> > > > to have severe problems inductively as well. Can you please
> > > > explain how you arrived at the above conclusion? I think it can
> > > > be undermined. Thanks.
> > >
> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
> >
> > right to ask jurors the questions that you are referring to.
>
> Authorities need to ask questions to find out if jurors are free of
> conflicts and so on. The notion of letting the two sides bump jurors
> for almost any reason? Maybe not so smart, but not a corrupt notion.
Where you say "conflicts" here, or "sympathetic" above, you are
speaking of the defendant's Right to an Impartial Jury. Laws do not
have rights, they only define Rights and prescribe penality for
violation against, and therefore, even though laws can be held for trial
or judgment the same as the defendant and any witnesses, laws have no
right to an "impartial" jury. And, as Laws should only serve to Bear
Witness as to the boundary of our Rights and the penality for their
violation, the Right of the defendant to Confront his Witness Against
him clearly gives him the Right to Confront the Laws he's charged
against, which are bearing witness that he violated another's Rights,
and bring those laws into judgment as well, just as he, the judge, or
the jury could with a human witness.
> > Is this the system you want to respect, George? The prosecutors
> > are breaking the law. What's the point, George?
>
> I worry prosecutors have unchecked powers which can lead to
> corruption. But fixing that does not require throwing the baby
> out with the bath water.
You ARE still talking about the Right of the Juror to bring the laws
as well as the defendant to judgment, aren't you? A better analogy
might be: "Fixing the problem requires throwing the baby INTO the bath
water." The "baby" being the Law brought into judgment. Once the
"baby" is "bathed" of "corruption", their may not even be a "baby" at
all, but only a clod of "corruption"!
> > > A system in which we feel that we are free not to obey laws will
> > > lead to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law
> > > breaking which will lead to bad results.
> >
> > Too bad the Nazi soldiers didn't question their laws. This is
> > authoritarianism and rigidity, George.
>
> It is respect for our system of authority, which has demonstrated
> that it deserves our respect.
A Perfectly Circular argument!!!
Is it respect for our system of authority to allow government to
enforce laws which clearly smack us in the face of unfairness and
injustice?
> Nazi Germany showed it did not deserve our respect.
Because it's "soldiers didn't question their laws"!
> This is a good place, proven by the fact that few leave it and many
> try to join it.
And, the sky is blue, but what have either to do with a Juror's
Right, even Obligation, to bring not only the defendant to judgment, but
the laws bearing witness against him as well?
> > This violates the whole spirit of the law. Again, if we are going
> > to imprison pot smokers, then does the legal system deserve our
> > respect?
>
> No legal system will do only that which you think is wise.
That isn't what he asked you. Let me ask you:
Do you believe it is just that marijuana smokers should be either
imprisoned or fined, and of so, define how smoking marijuana, in and of
itself, violates or threatens the Rights of another?
You do believe only behavior which violates or threatens the Rights
of another should be against the law to begin with, don't you?
> Pot smokers are not typically jailed (I smoked pot pretty openly in
> public for many years and only once did the authorities try to bust
> me - with a one hundred dollar fine maximum - and I beat the rap
> because they did not follow constitutionally permitted methods to
> search my pockets for the dope). If pot smokers were sent to jail for
> long terms, that would erode my support for our system.
Maybe, if empathy is lacking, a fine or even some jail time, along
with, as far as government's concerned, the loss of your Right to vote,
your Right to Bear Arms, and numerous others, not to mention how your
life in general would be screwed, your support would have become eroded
some time back. Especially, while you sit there wondering just who it
was that you had violated!
> YOu are correct that I could turn against the state.
You don't have to turn against the state! Only against any laws,
which to your best judgment, are unjust. Which, in fact, actually
serves to enforce the state.
> So far it has not gotten so bad as to make me feel that way.
So far, has it hit you personally? Empathy seems to be lacking here.
Many people are serving mandatory minimums for having small personal
gardens in their closets, OR EVEN just unknowingly being around the
wrong person at the wrong time, both of which I consider as unjust. I
believe empathy should be had and expressed for their unjust plight, and
that efforts should be made to stop the wrong, and attempt to make it
right.
> > > Act as if the maxim of your will were a universal law, or, what
> > > if everyone did it?
> >
> > Straight from Kant. :-)
>
> WHy if nobody fought in the war, Sir, then I would be a damned fool
> to - I'd be the only one and get killed for sure.
He watched and did nothing as they hauled away the mis-fits.
He watched and did nothing as they hauled away the gypsies.
And, when they came for the Jews, nobody was there to protect him!
> Catch 22.
That wasn't a "Catch 22"! It's was only your opinion of what makes
someone a fool. And, it does this in terms of War while this debate is
about Law.
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better
> >> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
> >> >
than
> >> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
> >>
> >> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
> >> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
> >> right to disobey the law.
> >
> > But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>
>
> face his accusers.
>
> >a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
> >judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
> >the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>
> He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
>
> You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the law
> violate it.
>
> A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
>
> If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are doing.
> Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may be done by
> "right."
>
> Might does not make right.
>
>
Yes, the jurors have a right to judge the law and the facts of the
case. The Supreme Court has said that much. Read Jury Nullification by
Clay S. Conrad. You are right George, might does not make right. This is
why the state is wrong in incarcerating persons that have not violated
the harm principle. I guess might makes right when it comes to the
government.
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ......
> >> >> >
> >disagree
> >> >> >with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the
laws
> >> >> should be.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
> >> >> selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because the
process
> >we
> >> >> use to make laws is legitimate and better than the alternative
ways
> >of
> >> >> making laws.
> >> >>
> >> > This argument is not a deductively valid argument. It
appears
> >to
> >> >have severe problems inductively as well. Can you please explain
how
> >you
> >> >arrived at the above conclusion? I think it can be undermined.
> >Thanks.
> >>
> >> than a system in which they sometimes lie.
> >>
> >right to ask jurors the questions that you are referring to.
>
> Authorities need to ask questions to find out if jurors are free of
> conflicts and so on. The notion of letting the two sides bump jurors
> for almost any reason? Maybe not so smart, but not a corrupt notion.
>
> >system you want to respect, George? The prosecutors are breaking the
> >law. What's the point, George?
>
> I worry prosecutors have unchecked powers which can lead to
> corruption. But fixing that does not require throwing the baby out
> with the bath water.
>
lead
> >> to laws being questioned which will lead to a lot of law breaking
> >> which will lead to bad results.
> >>
> > Too bad the Nazi soldiers didn't question their laws. This is
> >authoritarianism and rigidity, George.
>
> It is respect for our system of authority, which has demonstrated that
> respect.
>
> This is a good place, proven by the fact that few leave it and many
> try to join it.
>
> >the law. Again, if we are going to imprison pot smokers, then does
the
> >legal system deserve our respect?
>
> are not typically jailed (I smoked pot pretty openly in public for
> many years and only once did the authorities try to bust me - with a
> one hundred dollar fine maximum - and I beat the rap because they did
> not follow constitutionally permitted methods to search my pockets for
> the dope). If pot smokers were sent to jail for long terms, that would
> terms for selling drugs does erode the legitimacy of the govt to a
> degree in my mind. But on the whole the system seems still pretty
> far it has not gotten so bad as to make me feel that way.
>
> >> everyone did it?
> >>
> > Straight from Kant. :-)
>
> WHy if nobody fought in the war, Sir, then I would be a damned fool to
> - I'd be the only one and get killed for sure.
>
>
And it is also pure fascism.
> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Logical Pike
jury never has a right to judge the law. At what point in time, if thing
s got very bad, would you say that a jury had the right to judge the
law? It seems never, right? If you were sitting on a jury and the judge
said that you had the right to judge the law what would you do? It is
still an injustice, even in this country, if people that don't violate
the harm principle are imprisoned. I do not have the right to jail you
if you smoke pot in order to ease your cancer pain ( hopefully , this
will never happen). I do not have that right as a juror. I will not take
part in injustice in any country.
Martin McPhillips
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:29:53 -0500, "Martin McPhillips"
>
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message ...
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:37 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>>>> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
>>>>> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
>>>>> right to disobey the law.
>>>>
>>>> But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>>>
>>>There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
>>
>>
>>>Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right to
>>>face his accusers.
>>
>>
>>> It is the right of
>>>>a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
>>>>judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
>>>>the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>>>
>>>It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>>>
>>>He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
>>>
>>>You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the law
>>>violate it.
>>>
>>>A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
>>>
>>>If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are doing.
>>>Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may be done by
>>>"right."
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>That your mind is so diseased and corrupt, Tyrebiter, is the source
>>of your confusion. You talk like a man with a paper asshole.
>
>Martin - this is a real discussion.
>
>Come back later, when the adults are done. OK?
You've never been involved in a *real* discussion. And
you wouldn't know *how* to involve yourself in one.
You're a propagandist who bleets on in ridiculous sing-song
corruptions of rhetoric.
Logical Pike
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> road to hell paved with good intentions.
>
> >
> >
> >
Network *
> >The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
not ignoring unjust laws. Very much to the contrary. It is highly
unlikely that ignoring laws dealing with drug usage would lead to
problems in this country. It is the non-legalization of drugs which is a
cause of several problems.
There is judicial nullification. Judges do it quite a bit. Police
use discretion. So do prosecutors all the time. What your "rule of law"
has led to is an epidemic of crime and the collapse of the family (a
negative impact on many families). It has led to violent thugs being
released to prey on children and adults alike. Just what the drug war
was designed to prevent. But, it is more important to have these drug
users and sellers in prison. Is this what you want, George? Your rule
of law allows idiots the excuse to sell drugs and make a ton of money.
Why go to school and become a doctor and cure some human disease? I can
tell by this discussion that it is too late in this country. We are
screwed! I would think that there are a lot of well-meaning people who
feel like you do, George. You need to look yourself in the mirror and
realize that the "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" is germane
to your viewpoint. I hope that I never have anybody like you on "my"
jury. I don't want to hear you complaining if it ever gets to be too
"late."
How is possession of marijuana a crime? How, not why? Is it jury
nullification to ponder this question? Anyhow, George, thanks for your
time and responses. :-)
pro...@my-deja.com
> > > > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
> > > >
> > > > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of
> > > > jurors since the beginning of the nation will lead to better
> > > > results than a corrupt, self-serving system.
> > >
> > > But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more
> > > than the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President
> > > has the right to disobey the law.
> >
> > But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>
> There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
But, exercising Jury Nulification IS their Right and therefore NOT
contrary to law!!! Get it?
> Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right
> to face his accusers.
This is a: "The sky is blue, therefore:...whatever..." assertion, and
caries no weight in a logical discussion.
> > It is the right of a president to grant pardons, it is the right of
> > a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place
> > of a judge, it is the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or
> > sentence sentence.
>
> It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
> He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
Hahahahahaha!!!! YOU Just Said he has a Right to pass judgment
and/or pass sentence! So obviously, doing so would NOT be contrary to
the law!
You are trying to counter the legal Right to Jury Nullification with
an argument that isn't in opposition to this Right, then apparently
trying to assert or suggest that unless you can be proved wrong, the
Right to Jury Nullification is Wrong! Being that Jury Nullification IS
a Right, it Can NOT be contrary to the law!
> You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the
> law violate it.
How is exercising a Right against the law?
> A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
And, a Juror has the Right, indeed the Obligation, to exercise Jury
Nulification, when, *in their judgment*, either the defendant is
innocent dispite the evidence against them, or the law is unjust dispite
the defendant's guilt, "and the courts must abide by that decision."
- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
> If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are
> doing. Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may
> be done by "right."
"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible
power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by
the trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))"
> Might does not make right.
But, exercising a Right IS right!
--
Email blocks all but personal list:
< http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
pro...@my-deja.com
Assuming the Jurors are, for the most part, impartial toward the
defendant (the one with the Rights to this Impartiality [laws secure
Rights, they do not have Rights!]), how could their judgment over either
the "defendant's guilt" or the "justice of the law" be anything other
than their true judgment, and representative of the "State or district
wherein the crime shall have been committed"?
Yes, it could be that a Juror just happens to seceretly enjoy
performing the same "crime" as the defendant is being accused of, or he
could have sliped through the investigators, and was partial toward the
defendant. The latter of which could result in prosecution for purgery,
and they'd most surely investigate such person much more throughly than
before. The former of which, like it or not, is only representative of
the "State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed",
because, like it or not, unless their already convicted, their still a
legeal citizen of the "State or district wherein the crime shall have
been committed". Besides, even if they did seceretly enjoy performing
the same "crime", if that crime was particularally heinous in nature,
they'd be a fool to draw the attention they'd surely receive after such
a judgment.
Yet, STILL, ONLY if you can prove partiality toward, for or against,
the defendant, can you disqualify them, and must accept their judgment
as their judgment. Even if it was later proved such a juror did indeed
enjoy the same crime, it can STILL not be proved they didn't pass their
honest judgment as to the defendant's innocence!
> A Supreme Court justice can make decisions which are not legal - and
> his decision is completely legal, I guess.
Yes, it is. And remember you said this.
> But do you urge such justices to ignore the law, and make decisions
> they know to violate it?
How can you know what they know? And, and the act of either a Judge
or Juror judging a particular law IS NOT violating that particular law!
When, in their judgment, the evidence or the law is wrong, yes!
> Same with jurors.
And, remember you said this. In the court room, each Juror has the
power of a Judge over the defendant's innocence, while guilt must be a
colaboration between all twelve jurors.
> > and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution
> > of such laws." In fact, it's their duty.
>
> No.
You don't remember what you say?
> It is the duty of the juror, the Judge, the Supreme Court justice
> to decide consistent with the law.
It is the duty of the Judge or the Juror to pass judgment on the
guilt of the defendant, or the justness of the law. In the case of a
Jury, each Juror has the absolute power to judge the defendant innocent,
or the law unjust, while it takes a colaboration of all twelve jurors to
judge the defendant guilty and the law just.
> Even if it is "legal" for them to decide contrary to the law. I.e.,
> the POWER to act contrary to law is not the RIGHT to do so.
"I.e." Nothing! If it is "legal" how can it be contrary to law?
Whew,,,
> > > But I agree that that is probably part of what might have
> > > motivated
> > >
> > > So now, as opposed to when folks had no say in govt, there is
> > > rightly a big burden for you to prevail when you conclude that
> > > laws are part of tyranny etc.
> >
> > But, aren't you now arguing against "folks" having just such "say"?
>
> I think it is ok to violate a law (decide contrary to) requiring Jews
> to be killed, in a tyrannical government, but it is not ok to violate
> a law in a nation with a legitimate government, where laws are fairly
> determined, based on procedures likely to lead to pretty good results.
> I may not think that a 12 percent tariff on imported bows and arrows
> is wise.
What you think a Juror should think is irrelevant, and if such
impositions were allowed, impartiality would be impossible!
> I do not have a right to decide to repeal that law on my own.
And, Jury Nulification is Not a Repeal of Law. Only Nulification.
> Legislatures are the proper forum to make law,
And, Jury Nulification is Not Making Law. Only Nulification.
> and judges and jurors should not make up the laws themselves instead.
Their not making up laws, their only Nulifying Laws they judge to be
unjust, simply because they judge so, and/or they judge the defendant
innocent dispite the evidence against them, again, simply because they
judge so.
> > > > "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the
> > > > fact in controversy."
> > > > -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
> > >
> > > I think you have misconstrued what he means. Exactly what the
> > > law means is often debatable.
> >
> > The dictates of a law are rarely debateable, while the justice of
> > a law is always debateable.
>
> So what? I repeat: I think you have misconstrued what he means.
"So What?"? Mr. Tyrebiter, I begin to tire, and it really bites!
> Look - if Jurors had the right you allude to - there would be clear,
> rather than ambiguous, statements of the right.
>
> You have only one such clear statement - this Spooner guy. Period. SO
> far.
Mr. Tyrebiter, this debate has gone flat!
Whewww,
> [whole bunch of snippage of repeatedly hashed out issues]
pro...@my-deja.com
> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > road to hell paved with good intentions.
>
> obey any and all laws that come from the legislature, no matter
> what, is a lot closer to your proverbial road to Hell.
On Earth!
pro...@my-deja.com
>
> as the legislature wrote it?
A Judge or a Jury both have Right and an Obligation to judge both the
law and the defendant, therefore doing so CAN NOT be contrary to the
law!
But, we've been over, and over, this before.
pro...@my-deja.com
> >
> > What are your ulterior motives, George? You seem to be an
> > apologist for big brother.
>
> I would say an apologist for the rule of law.
Dispite their injustice?
> > I am coming to the only conclusion that logic will allow me to
> > arrive at. :-)
>
> No, logic allows you a wider range of conclusions.
Hahahahahaha!!!
bool logic()
{
return TRUE;
}
bool conclusion()
{
return logic();
}
Yea, I suppose your right, Mr. Tyrebiter! With the "right" logic,
just about any conclusion is possible!
Hahahahahaha!!!
Steve
"Mildred Pierce" <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85m9um$6ee$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
While I have no doubt that jury nullification does exists everywhere to some
degree, I have my doubts that any state constitution encourages juries to
legislate during deliberations? The purpose and focus of a jury is supposed
to be to decide the facts and apply the law as given to them by a trial
judge. I agree that NO ONE should directly control or influence the
deliberations of a sitting jury with regard to it's verdict, but the jury
members usually takes some sort of oath that they will apply the law as it
exist. When they decide to "vote how they feel" about a law rather than
honor that oath we're left with little more than a mirror image of vigilante
justice.
Steve
TCE
were challenged was by juries refusing to convict when
prosecutions were brought under such a law.
There has to be a very real reason though to challenge laws
that have majority support or backing. there is a
difference between refusing to follow a law because it
offends deeply held beliefs and refusing to accept a law
because of a personal quirk. Laws only operate by consent
and reqire general acceptance to be enforced. In cases of
real injustiuce the jury may be the first and only defence
that a defendant has.
TCE
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:37 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better
>>> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>>> >
>>> > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of jurors
>>> > since the beginning of the nation will lead to better results than
>>> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
>>>
>>> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
>>> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
>>> right to disobey the law.
>>
>> But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>
>There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
>
That is the whole point of having jurys. If it wasn't the point then
the judge would make all decisions. It has always been the point of
having a jury, to keep the government from passing bad laws.
>Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right to
>face his accusers.
>
>
> It is the right of
>>a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
>>judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
>>the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
>
>You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the law
>violate it.
>
>A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
>
>If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are doing.
>Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may be done by
>"right."
>
>Might does not make right.
>
>
>
>
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2000-01-14 00:00:37 GMT, proffsl wrote:
>>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>>> Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>>>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>> There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
>
>Yes, there is. That is why the jurors are there. If a
>particular law is unconstitutional, then they are one
>more barrier in the way of tyranny.
And jurors are the only ones given the right to decide on
constitutionality by the constitution. Not the SC.
<snip>
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:18:40 GMT, Mildred Pierce
><mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike
>>> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The
>>founders, in
>>> >their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
>>Something
>>> >must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>>> >jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities
>>suggest
>>> >that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>>
>>> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>>
>>Again.. It is not juries who nullify laws, it is jurors. It only takes
>>one juror out of an entire jury to nullify a law by hanging the case.
>>It is not about popular laws, it is about un-just laws. The public can
>>easily support un-just laws. If Jury Nullification were about the
>>popularity of laws then jury decisions would be decided by majority
>>rule.
>>
>>You would be hard pressed, for example, to randomly choose 12 people
>>who all support any un-just law (like marijuana laws) but chances are
>>those 12 people would also believe in the just laws (like murder)..
>>
>>Using this example one can understand why the jury is designed the way
>>it is. If it worked the way it was designed then un-just laws would be
>>null and void, while the just laws continued to prevail.
>
>Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror thought
>were unjust?>
The fact that it takes 12 to convict. If one votes not to convict
then they can't convict.
>
>
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:34:23 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
>>> > the judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
>>> > unjust laws who clog it.
>>>
>>> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>>>
>>> I think you are wrong.
>>>
>>> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the wind
>>> of popular opinion.
>>>
>>> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>>
>> You phrased your question in such a way as to prevent any proveable
>>answers with current laws, while providing yourself an out if previous
>>laws. With current laws, the only verifiable way to determine the
>>people's "likes" is by vote, but once a vote is taken, those laws are no
>>longer current! Until the vote is taken, it can't be proved. After the
>>vote is taken, it would no longer be law! Not to mention that your
>>asking for somebody's opinion rather than the facts. Let's restructure
>>your question, and focus only on the facts.
>>
>> You could have asked: "Can you name a law which people didn't like?
>>
>> And, as examples of such laws, consider every law which was ever
>>repealed. One of which, by the way, was the "Prohibition" of consentual
>>alcohol use! Every law which was frequently, even routinely, violated
>>by a large portion of otherwise law abiding citizens, which, by the way,
>>is exactly what happened during the alcohol prohibition!
>>
>> Kentucky use to have a Helmet law, which was repealed just a couple
>>years ago. Therefore, the people didn't like the helmet laws.
>>
>>
>>> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake of
>>> thinking that they are commonly held.
>>>
>>> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you think
>>> "we" want to nullify.
>>
>> Mr. Tyrebiter! You do it again! The imposible question again! If
>>you'd had done it only once, as you did above, I would not have been
>>suspicious of your intent. If you'd had done it twice, phrased in much
>>the same way, I'd not have been necessarly suspicious. But, to do it
>>twice in a row, the Same Impossible Question, only phrased in an
>>entirely different way?
>
>Well, I'm not playing games. I just happen to think that legislators,
>to a large degree, are wishy washy and do what we want.
>
>I think people in general pretty much agree with the BODY of law we
>have.
>
>I think the previous poster does not agree with me and I was genuinely
>curious about what laws the person thinks are unpopular.
>
>But your point about all the repealed laws is a good one. But then I
>would say - well, they got repealed.
>
>Good luck finding subversives on the jury - I just think you might
>yell Charge - and find no one is marching behind you on this one.
>
A subversive on the jury would be a juror who refused to judge the
law.
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:07:15 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Mildred Pierce <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> > > > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > What makes you think the idea was to nullify laws one juror
>>> > > > > thought were unjust?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > hmm.. honestly I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
>>> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea". Please elaborate.
>>> > >
>>> > > too lazy to backup snippage, but I thought you argued that our
>>> > > form of govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when they
>>> > > feel the law is unjust.'
>>> > >
>>> > > Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good
>>> > > idea, or do you think it is part of our system of government,
>>> > > intended by the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>>> >
>>> > What kind of a question is that, George? Please stop the ad hominem
>>> > attacks. Let him make the argument for jury nullification. Why does
>>> > what only the founders say appear to be sacred?
>>>
>>> Because the rule of law is important. By following laws, instead of
>>> what we each think is right, we are protected from the tyranny that
>>> will surely follow when someone things that their notion of right
>>> means that we should go to jail.
>>
>> True, and Jurors not only have the Right,
>
>Saying it does not make it true. You could with the same logic say
>Judges have the right to rule contrary to law.
>
>.......
>>> A system of laws, reached through procedures which are fair and just,
>>> is our only protection from tyranny
>>
>> Yet, it appears, you would argue against one of the very processes
>>which was designed to keep our laws fair and just, that being "Jury
>>Nulification" being the right to judge those very laws as well as the
>>defendant.
>
>Jury Nullification was not part of the plan.
>
If you don't judge the law then you are a bad juror. You should judge
the law before judging the defendant.
>You could with the same logic argue the plan was for Judges, and all
>officials, to be able to disobey the law.
>
The law is jury nullification. If you don't judge the law you are
disobeying the law. See all the court casses listed.
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:32:55 GMT, Michael Zarlenga
><zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.law-enforcement George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>: The idea that we should pick and choose our laws is the proverbial
>>: road to hell paved with good intentions.
>>
>>I dunno, George, I think the idea that we should all blindly
>>obey any and all laws that come from the legislature, no matter
>>what, is a lot closer to your proverbial road to Hell.
>
>So a judge, for instance, should make decisions contrary to the law as
>the legislature wrote it? Isn't that exactly what conservatives
>complain about all the time as bad?
>
>Our freedom comes from the procedures we have set up to safeguard our
>freedoms. If we ignore the rule of law, and replace it with doing what
>we think is right, then we will have the govt doing what IT thinks is
>right, and that will lead to tyranny. I assume you agree with that.
>
The rule of law is that one juror can judge the law.
>I suppose a juror doing what he thinks is right, contrary to law, is
>not as dangerous as the govt doing it.
>
It isn't contrary to the law it is the law.
>But if you accept the legitimacy of the processes protecting our
>freedoms, providing a good society for us, and some societies do not
>deserve that acceptance even though their processes look good,
>formally, then saying it is ok for people to ignore laws they don't
>like risks destroying a good deal.
>
The process protecting our freedoms includes jury nullification. It
is a big part of protecting our freedoms. (governments steal freedoms
not individuals).
>But I agree that some societies suck and should be resisted.
>
>Bertrand Russell combined our two views this way, by saying something
>like: I do not complain when I am punished for breaking the law. I
>only complain when I am not permitted to break the law.
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:58:06 GMT, Logical Pike
><logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike
>>> <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <cmgn7sg08mhruadr6...@4ax.com>,
>>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:19:08 GMT, Mildred Pierce
>>> >> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Right. If the courts become clogged, it will be the lawyers and
>>the
>>> >> >judges and police officers who arrest and charge and try these
>>unjust
>>> >> >laws who clog it.
>>> >>
>>> >> You seem to think that our laws aren't popular.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you are wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think lawmakers are pretty much weather vanes, blowing in the
>>wind
>>> >> of popular opinion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Can you name a law you think people don't like?
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you probably have really odd beliefs, and make the mistake
>>of
>>> >> thinking that they are commonly held.
>>> >>
>>> >> But maybe I am wrong. Give us an example of an unpopular law you
>>think
>>> >> "we" want to nullify.
>>> >>
>>> >> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>> >>
>>> > Well, the volcano hasn't erupted yet. But it will. The founders,
>>in
>>> >their wisdom, included a safety valve via jury nullification.
>>Something
>>> >must be done about judges not telling the whole truth to juries about
>>> >jury nullification. this is a sin of omission. The probabilities
>>suggest
>>> >that it wouldn't take much for jury nullification to have an impact.
>>>
>>> Why would juries nullify laws they support?
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Can you imagine doing five years for smoking pot?
>>>
>>> No. And the law providing for that was repealed. What the public
>>> wants, it gets, in general. That is my point.
>>>
>>> Now, imagine
>>> >being acquitted of smoking pot because the judge had the balls to
>>tell
>>> >the jury the "whole" truth and a juror figured it would be a grave
>>> >injustice for someone to do time for not hurting anyone. If jurors
>>knew
>>> >their rights, then maybe they would start to overturn stupid laws.
>>Maybe
>>> >more people would vote too. People need to have a sense of having the
>>> >power to have their say-so. Maybe this is the shot in the arm that
>>this
>>> >country needs.
>>>
>>> I still think that you may overestimate how many laws are unpopular.
>>>
>>> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>>> juror, even if you disagree with it.
>>>
>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>>
>> What is the argument that you are suggesting? How is a juror
>>"obeying" the law when he is in the jury room? The juror is deciding,
>>also, the justification of the law. Are you suggesting that all laws are
>>just? Are you suggesting that marijuana laws are just? If so, why?
>
>We have a moral obligation to obey law, because otherwise there would
>be a lot of lawbreaking, leading to bad things.
>
>A juror obeys law when a statute says: if you do X, then you pay a
>price Y, and X was done, and the juror says: guilty.
>
Juror obeys the law when he says statute X is a bad law, and says not
guilty. If it was not true then we would not need jury.
The only reason to have jury trials is to have the jurors judge the
law.
>The juror can decide the justification of the law, but so can the
>citizen in his everyday life.
>
>I do not think dope laws are all just.
>
>I think it takes two to tango - buyer and seller - and that it is more
>the buyer at fault, so why stick seller with a zillion years?
>
>
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
do...@stone-soup.com
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:22:06 GMT, Mildred Pierce
><mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey the law when a
>>> juror, even if you disagree with it.
>>
>>If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
>>claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that says
>>jurors should throw out bad laws?
>
>If all officials entrusted to follow the law, including jurors,
>judges, Presidents, felt that they are morally permitted to ignore the
>law, and replace it with what they think SHOULD be the law, then
>respect for the law will collapse. As a result the govt will be free
>to base law on who is charged, and the tyranny of a govt with a
>"right" to get bad people will be more likely.
>
>Respect for the law leads to more law abiding behavior, generally a
>good thing, and is essential for respect for govt, also generally a
>good thing in a place with good govt..
>
>And the law that says jurors should throw out bad laws does not exist,
>so I don't know how to answer that question.
>
The law that says we have jurys is just that. There is no other
reason to have a jury.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <tfvs7ss7mlruicfaa...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:37 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>> >> > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better
>> >> > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>> >> >
>> >> > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of jurors
>> >> > since the beginning of the nation will lead to better results
>than
>> >> > a corrupt, self-serving system.
>> >>
>> >> But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more than
>> >> the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President has the
>> >> right to disobey the law.
>> >
>> > But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>>
>> There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
>>
>> Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right to
>> face his accusers.
>>
>> It is the right of
>> >a president to grant pardons, it is the right of a judge to pass
>> >judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is
>> >the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>>
>> It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>>
>> He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
>>
>> You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the law
>> violate it.
>>
>> A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
>>
>> If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are doing.
>> Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may be done by
>> "right."
>>
>> Might does not make right.
>>
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
> Yes, the jurors have a right to judge the law and the facts of the
>case. The Supreme Court has said that much. Read Jury Nullification by
>Clay S. Conrad. You are right George, might does not make right. This is
>why the state is wrong in incarcerating persons that have not violated
>the harm principle. I guess might makes right when it comes to the
>government.
No. I focused on the legitimate processes of passing laws, and their
rational relationship to logic, as the source of their "right." I said
that govts could do bad things. And the harm principle underlies the
rules banning certain drugs - so your premise is false.
Look - I would be tempted to nullify a drug dealer's conviction, were
someone oddly to accept me as a juror (since I would tell the truth in
voir dire, and indicate such sympathies if asked about them), and I
might even do it. But I might not. Because of a conflict between of
the rightness of following the laws, and my personal belief that it is
wrong to send someone to jail for a long time for selling drugs.
But I would never claim to have done the "moral" thing if I nullified.
I would be more like a judge who knows he violates a law by replacing
it with what he thinks should be the law. He chooses idiosyncratic
right over procedural right. IMO our freedom can only reliably come
from procedural right.
I suggest that you be honest - and just say that you are a subversive
who wants to tear down certain laws. And realize that you do some harm
in proposing that.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>> > > > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A system in which folks tell the truth will lead to better
>> > > > > results than a system in which they sometimes lie.
>> > > >
>> > > > A system not manipulated to remove a fundamental right of
>> > > > jurors since the beginning of the nation will lead to better
>> > > > results than a corrupt, self-serving system.
>> > >
>> > > But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more
>> > > than the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President
>> > > has the right to disobey the law.
>> >
>> > But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
>>
>> There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
>
> But, exercising Jury Nulification IS their Right and therefore NOT
>contrary to law!!! Get it?
No. It is not their right. It is simply something wrong which they can
pretty safely get away with without punishment. Get it? Just as a
judge can ignore the law and follow his own personal desires about
society. Just as the President can issue executive orders he knows are
illegal, yet be certain that he can get away with it. Just as a City
Councilman can take campaign contributions in return for changing his
vote on a zoning matter, secure in the knowledge that because no one
explicitly talked about the quid pro quo, he can get away with it. The
CIty Councilman has the "right" to take a bribe for a changed vote in
the same way that a juror has the "right" to decide contrary to law.
>
>
>> Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant the right
>> to face his accusers.
>
> This is a: "The sky is blue, therefore:...whatever..." assertion, and
>caries no weight in a logical discussion.
>
It is logical. You are confusing power with right, and I mention other
examples of those making legal decisions who can SIMILARLY act
contrary to law, and get away with it.
>
>> > It is the right of a president to grant pardons, it is the right of
>> > a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence, and, when chosen in place
>> > of a judge, it is the right of a jury to pass judgment and/or
>> > sentence sentence.
>>
>> It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>>
>> He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
>
> Hahahahahaha!!!! YOU Just Said he has a Right to pass judgment
>and/or pass sentence! So obviously, doing so would NOT be contrary to
>the law!
The right to decide is not the right to decide contrary to law.
Or do you genuinely think that a Judge has a right to ignore the law?
>
> You are trying to counter the legal Right to Jury Nullification with
>an argument that isn't in opposition to this Right, then apparently
>trying to assert or suggest that unless you can be proved wrong, the
>Right to Jury Nullification is Wrong! Being that Jury Nullification IS
>a Right, it Can NOT be contrary to the law!
>
Jurors have the right to decide guilt. They do not have the right to
do so in violation of the law. They have only the power to do that.
>
>> You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out the
>> law violate it.
>
> How is exercising a Right against the law?
A right to decide (according to law) is not a right to decide contrary
to law.
>
>
>> A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the right to do so.
>
> And, a Juror has the Right, indeed the Obligation, to exercise Jury
>Nulification, when, *in their judgment*, either the defendant is
>innocent dispite the evidence against them, or the law is unjust dispite
>the defendant's guilt, "and the courts must abide by that decision."
> - US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
> 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
>
Please tell us the actual words in that opinion which should be in
quotes, and which words you inserted along with words which should be
in quotes.
>
>> If you support jurors who do that, be honest about what you are
>> doing. Do not pretend that it is legal, or is something that may
>> be done by "right."
>
>"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
>Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible
>power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by
>the trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))"
Power. The President has the power to have the Army bomb the entire
congress and take over the country. DOes he have the right to do that?
>
>
>> Might does not make right.
>
> But, exercising a Right IS right!
Not if it is exercised contrary to what the law provides.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2000-01-14 00:00:37 GMT, proffsl wrote:
>>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>>> Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>>>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>> There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
>
>Yes, there is. That is why the jurors are there. If a
>particular law is unconstitutional, then they are one
>more barrier in the way of tyranny.
Saying it does not make it so. Your logic also leads to this: Judges
have the right to ignore the law and decide instead as they see fit.
That is why they are there. An INS official has the right to ignore
the law, and bar your entry, contrary to law, as he sees fit. That is
why he is there.
>
>> Just as there is no right for a Judge to deny a defendant
>> the right to face his accusers.
>
>And yet they have done so.
Did they have the right to do so?
>
>>> It is the right of a president to grant pardons,
>>> it is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence,
>
>on appeal, of if the defendant chooses to have a judge
>decide rather than a jury
Can the judge rightly find the defendant guilty even though he knows
that the law require a verdict of innocent?
How is that different from jury nullification?
Do jurors have the right to find an innocent man guilty because he is
black?
>
>>> and, when chosen in place of a judge, it is the right of a
>>> jury to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>> It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence sentence.
>
>But only if the jury convicts or the defendant has chosen
>to have the case decided by a judge rather than a jury.
>
>> He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the
>> law says.
>
>And yet they, right on up through the supremes, do so on a
>regular basis.
I doubt many judges do that, actually. They typically simply view the
law differently from the way you do.
But do they have a right to do that?
>
>> You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry
>> out the law violate it.
>
>No, I propose that the scum who have given their oath/
>affirmation to (1st) defend the rights of the people,
>(2nd) uphold the constitution to the extent that it does
>not violate the rights of the people, & (3rd) uphold the
>statutes to the extent that they do not violate the
>constitution or individual rights, not be given a free
>reign to convict the accused without the concurrance of
>all 12 jurors.
We agree on that. But if you claim jurors can ignore the law, you have
no basis for saying that those "scum" should be bound by it. Your jury
nullification argument undercuts the legitimacy of your claims that
officials should act legally. If you argue one group can rightly
ignore the law, how can you argue others should obey it?
>
>> A juror has the POWER to disobey the law, but not the
>> right to do so.
>
>No, every juror has the duty to judge the law.
To find out what it means. Not to decide if it should be followed.
What you propose is that legislatures should have no power.
>
>A judge has the power to disobey the law and individual rights,
>but not the right to do so.
Yet you claim a juror does. Hypocrite.
>
>The juror has the power to say that s/he cannot convict a person,
>and the right and responsibility to do so when that is the case.
>The judge has no legitimate power to second-guess the jurors
>and convict in spite of their "not guilty" verdict. The
>jurors have the responsibility to make the best decision
>of which they are capable in the circumstances.
SO does the judge. That does not mean he can rightly violate law.
>
>
>"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined
> by man, by which a government can be held to the
> principles of its constitution." --- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
>
I agree. This quote does not support your theory any more than it
supports mine. IF A GOVT VIOLATES LAW, then the jury is a check on
that VIOLATION.
>"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the
> fact in controversy." --- John Jay 1794 GA v Brailsford
I.e, the juror must decide what the law is, instead of simply relying
on the govt's view of it. But this does NOT mean that a juror may know
the law says one thing, and vote contrary to that. Again, this quote
does not urge jury nullification.
>
>"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
> --- Samuel Chase 1804
>
Why is it that you can't find a quote supporting Jury Nullification?
Instead of ambiguous quotes, which doubtless mean that jurors should
decide what the law means independent of the govts view of the law's
meaning, and then FOLLOW THE LAW? FInd a quote that jurors have a
right to decide CONTRARY to law. That is what jury nullification is.
NOT "construing the law as it really is." Which is what your quotes
refer to.
>"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the
> undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its
> verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and
> contrary to the evidence... and the courts must abide by
> that decision." --- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
> 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006
Yet again you fail to have a quote saying juries have a right to
decide contrary to law. You merely post that they can do that and get
away with it. I agree with that. They do have the POWER. But, of
course, that does NOT support your thesis that they have the RIGHT to
do that.
>
>The jury has "unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit
> in disregard of the instruction given by the trial judge."
> --- US v Dougherty 1972
No kidding. SO what? This does not support a right to nullify. It just
says that, like other officials, juries can do the wrong thing and get
away with it. Just like a city councilman taking a bribe for a vote -
when there is no way to catch him.
>"The Constitution's guarantee of a trial by jury, for
> instance, has a purely political dimension. It reserves
> to local communities the power to nullify oppressive laws
> by refusing to convict. The process is set up to protect
> certain important political rights, such as freedom of
> speech and freedom from oppressive laws that may be passed
> when one narrow interest group momentarily captures the
> government. This is politics in the highest sense - jury
> trials, elected judges, elected prosecutors, and the power
> of executive clemency all unite to mitigate the
> opportunities for tyranny." --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court
I agree that jurors and other officials have the power to disobey the
law. I do not agree that they have a right to.
But note that what this person describes is NOT a juror deciding
contrary to law. Just the opposite. What he points out is that a law
might be passed which is ILLEGAL - which violates our LEGAL RIGHTS,
such as for speech. I have conceded that a juror may vote for the
legally correct result. SO if the legislature passes a law against
burning a flag, and you know that such a law is unconstitutional,
contrary to law, then as a juror you may vote to acquit - because that
is what the law requires.
That is different from a juror deciding contrary to law.
Whether Mr. Neely means by the other "oppressive" laws similar
"purported" laws which in fact are clearly illegal, I do not know. But
I have a hunch he does.
But this quote can fairly be said to support your view, unlike the
others, and is fairly quoted by your for your position.
Do you have anything from our founding fathers to this effect? If you
do, I would like to see it.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2000-01-13 19:53:18 GMT, Logical Pike wrote:
>>> Too bad the Nazi soldiers didn't question their laws.
>>> This is authoritarianism and rigidity, George.
>
>> It is respect for our system of authority,
>
>Yah, that's what s/he wrote. It's authoritarian, not
>respecting of human rights -- of liberty. It is
>interesting that you refer to "our system of authority"
>when the USA was never intended to be such, but a
>nation of sovereign individuals, equal in rights,
>but with no "authority", no power over each other.
>
>> which has demonstrated that it deserves our respect.
>
>Which has demonstrated that it deserves no respect,
>which has demonstrated repeatedly that it is in severe
>need of reform, which has demonstrated repeatedly that
>it will not prosecute government functionaries who
>egregiously violate people's rights.
>
>> Nazi Germany showed it did not deserve our respect.
>
>Yes.
>
>> This is a good place, proven by the fact that few leave
>> it and many try to join it.
>
>Yes, many come to the USA because, as bad as it is, it
>is worse elsewhere. But the difference is narrowing.
>The USA is worse about some things, now.
>
>> No legal system will do only that which you think is wise.
>
>Yes?
>
>> But on the whole the system seems still pretty legit to me.
>> YOu are correct that I could turn against the state. So
>> far it has not gotten so bad as to make me feel that way.
>
>It has been that bad for decades to make me think that way.
>The worst of it is that most of the means for reform have
>been cut off.
>
>The internationally respecte criminologist Radzinowicz was
>a native of Poland; attended the universities of Paris,
>Geneva, Roma, Crakow & Cambridge, moving to England in
>1937; he's taught history, law & criminology at Cambridge,
>Princeton, Yale, Columbia & the U of Virginia; knighted in
>1970; is a visiting prof at FSU working with some graduate
>students; books include _Ideology & Crime_
>
>His "discourse" (as he called it) was organized around a
>listing of the characteristics of an authoritarian
>system, to which he suggested complementary characteristics
>for "democratic" systems (I would have said "objective").
>Then, he discussed some issues which are both current and
>reaching back into the 19th century, and concluded by saying
>that the system in the USA is at the bottom rung of systems
>that he could call "democratic" (say, a 6 on a 1 to 10 scale
>with 1 being totalitarian 2-5 being authoritarian, etc., up
>to objective law at 10).
>
>The characteristics he listed for authoritarian systems include:
>* arbitrariness,
Jury nullification as opposed to rule of law promotes arbitrary
results
subjectiveness and expansibility of the laws
>* unaccountable police
>* physical & mental coersion are SOP
>* procedures are closed to the public
>* meager or inferior appeals processes
>* heavy political influence on the judiciary
>* the tenet that crime is anti-social (? my notes aren't so
> good here it could have meant that the merely anti-social
> or impolite is considered a crime)
>* intimidation
>* widespread capital punishment & for numerous crimes
>* harsh sentencing
>* mental/psychological punishment
>* rights of prisoners are ignored
>* no initiative processes are available for reform
>* administrative enforcement
>* little outside investigation of the police, etc.
>* secrecy & isolation from world opinion
>* control/restriction of criminological research
SO I guess we come out pretty well. What's your point>?
>
>Some of the problems he discussed include the balancing or
>distribution of different methods of punishment, noting that
>the introduction of imprisonment was a radical addition to
>the menu of possibilities, allowing a better fit of severity
>of crime and punishment, but noting some problems including...
>
>Mandatory minimum sentences that take away discretion of
>the judges in matching crime severity, and such considerations
>as recidivism, to the punishment.
Empirical issue - can judge discretion track anything meaningful, or
does it just generate unequal treatment for no good reason?
Looks like judicial variation in sentencing does not produce fairness
- just the opposite.
>
>At the open house for the new criminology offices in the
>Hecht House, they displayed Gary Kleck's book _Targetting
>Guns_ and some quotes & graphs from faculty research projects.
>Among these was a tracking of murders of police (but none
>for murders by police) beside it, though, they had one
>graph showing that in Florida there had been roughly
>70 complaints of police abuse per 1000 police, and that
>roughly 10 of them (~15%) had been run all the way through
>the process, the rest white-washed.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>> Logical Pike wrote:
>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2000-01-13 09:07:54 GMT, Logical Pike wrote:
>>>>> ???? wrote:
>>>>>> ????? wrote:
>>>>>> To do that would be to violate you duty as a juror.
>>>>>> If you disagree with the law it is you duty to vote inocent.
>
>Yep. There'd be no reason to have a jury if it were just a
>rubber stamp.
No one claims he should be a rubber stamp, so this reply is illogical.
Jurors can be there to decide if the guy broke the law, and not for
the purpose of replacing the law with their own notion of right and
wrong. That is not the same as saying juror should be rubber stamp.
>
>>>>> I don';t agree, sympathetic as I am to your view of what the laws
>>>>> should be.
>
>>>>> I think we have a duty to tell the truth when asked questions
>>>>> selecting jurors, and a duty to obey the law, because
>
>Well, yes and no. We have a duty to obey all valid laws,
>i.e. ones which are constitutional and in accord with human
>rights. The "I was just following orders" excuse doesn't
>have any validity.
If we let you decide human rights, can you complain if I say you have
no right to marry because you are black, based on my views of human
rights? If everyone gets to make up their own laws, as you suggest,
then we no longer have a predictable rule of law. The lack of
predictablity permits tyrants to replace laws with their own views.
>
>>>>> the process we use to make laws is legitimate
>
>If it were, I'd agree. Unfortunately, the legislators regularly
>violate their oaths/affirmations of office that they will only
>propose and enact constitutional statutes. They even vote for
>bills which they have never read. And then the judges uphold
>unconstitutional measures merely because they serve their
>own personal agendas.
I have a hunch you have a really rare view of law. WHy should we
follow your very unusual notions? And if you can have your way on what
the law is, why not let the racist assert his view? Let the islamic
fundamentalist assert his view? Law collapses.
>
>>>>> and better than the alternative ways of making laws.
>
>
>"The Constitution's guarantee of a trial by jury, for
> instance, has a purely political dimension. It reserves
> to local communities the power to nullify oppressive laws
> by refusing to convict. The process is set up to protect
> certain important political rights, such as freedom of
> speech and freedom from oppressive laws that may be passed
> when one narrow interest group momentarily captures the
> government. This is politics in the highest sense - jury
> trials, elected judges, elected prosecutors, and the power
> of executive clemency all unite to mitigate the
> opportunities for tyranny." --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court
>
The quotes below do not assert a right of a juror to violate the law.
They merely state the juror may independently determine the law.
>"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the
> fact in controversy." --- John Jay (GA v Brailsford, 1794)
>
>"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
> --- Samuel Chase, 1804
>
>The jury has "unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit
> in disregard of the instruction given by the trial judge."
> --- US v Dougherty, 1972
>
>"An American jury is a wonder to behold. Ordinary citizens
> who serve on juries are careful that they do not convict
> an innocent person. Nine-tenths of the time, the same
> barber who regales you in his shop with a neo-Fascist
> general philosophy of law enforcement becomes a different
> animal when he is serving on a jury and has the fate of a
> real human being in his hands." --- Richard Neely WV
> Supreme Court
Just Neely. Have anyone I have ever heard of who supports your views?
>
>"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the
> undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict
> is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to
> the evidence... and the courts must abide by that decision."
> --- US v Moylan 4th Circuit Court Of Appeals 1969 417 F2d @1006
>
We also recognize the power of a city councilman to take a bribe and
probably get away with it. We agree jurors have the power to violate
the law. The issue is whether they have the right to do that.
>"The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that:
> (1) subsequent indictment of police officer witnesses for
> perjury did not entitle defendant to new trial..." --- US v Custis
> 988 F2d 1355 (quoted in Hamilton 1993-03-22 in Greidinger v Davis
> 988 F2d 1344 @1355)
>
>"If I had the power to set aside the verdict in the interests
> of justice, I would. But I am not a substitute for the jury
> system.
Yet, of course, a Jurist DOES have the POWER to do exactly this, in a
million ways, yet he says he restrains himself - why?
Nor for a... prosecutor who is good at issuing press
> releases instead of preparing cases!... Habeas law is a
> procedural morass. The 1 thing that everybody has succeeded
> in is making innocence irrelevant." --- Edward R. Korman
> (quoted in Mark Crane 1998-05-?? "Medical Convictions"
> _Reason_ pp 44 & 47)
>
>"[I]n Hayburn's Case of 1792 several justices of the Supreme Court
> actually protested against the Congress's assigning administrative
> & magisterial duties to them on the grounds that it violated the
> separation of powers. Judges withdrew from politics, promoted
> the development of law as a mysterious science known best by
> trained experts, & limited their activities to the regular courts,
> which became increasingly professional & less burdened by popular
> juries." --- Gordon S. Wood Comment 1997 "Common-Law Courts in
> a Civil-Law System" in Amy Gutmann, Antonin Scalia et al. 1997
> _A Matter of Interpretation_ pg 56
>
>"[T]here have always been, as there undoubtedly always will be,
> willful judges who bend the law to their wishes. But acknowledging
> [the existence of] evil is 1 thing, & embracing it is something
> else." --- Antonin Scalia Response 1997 "Common-Law Courts in a
> Civil-Law System" in Amy Gutmann, Antonin Scalia et al. 1997
> _A Matter of Interpretation_ pg 131
What you propose is this evil - bending the law to the wishes of the
juror.
Don't you even see that you are the evil you rail against?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> Judges are paid an annual salary, and it is actually in their interest
> to have less work rather than more.
And the revenue that pays those salaries comes from where? Judges in
mant places are voted in, and an in an effort to look "tough on crime"
Judges have little incentive to allow the important job of judging the
law up to mere common citizen jurors. The cop-lawyer-judge axis is a
very personal one too. It is a balance of power on any one tier that
fails to remain in check will quickly lose favor with the other too. A
judge that looks down on the various crooked, yet legitimate, practices
they engage in (i.e. like asset forfieture) will lose favor with cops
who are needed for testamony and case work.
Judges are human, and humans enjoy having power. I think there is a
simple reason why Judges do not inform juries of their right to nullify
law and it is because by doing so Judges will be relinquishing power, a
terrible thought I am sure.
The simple fact that Judges are paid by salery is overly simplistic and
does not address the issue at hand. Certainly if overnight if all the
un-just laws were vanished and the case-load were cut by two-thirds that
would mean that the number of judges would be cut too. This frightening
thought no doubt is enough incentive to the judge to keep the caseload
high, high enough even to justify a salary increase?
> Have you gone over the edge to crackpottery here?
Must we resort to ad homenin attacks? (When all else fails....) Rather
unbacoming since I am justifying my claims here, and quite well I might
add.
--
-- m.p. -- http://popamericana.com/libertanon -- http://mp3.com/76
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <vk2t7sgu59h4mem4p...@4ax.com>,
> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:08:03 GMT, pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
.....
>> >
>> >
>> >> > "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact
>> >> > in controversy."
>> >> > -John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
On your quotes. None says that jurors have the right to decide
contrary to what the law really is, but instead typically say that the
juror may vote according to law when the govt is wrong on what the law
is.
Drug laws are clearly constitutional.
So you have no right to nullify them.
You cite a West Virginia judge who talks about nullifying a somewhat
broader set of laws - those actually passed but illegal - like a law
against political speech - or an oppressive law passed by a narrow
faction contrary to the interests of the majority.
Again, that does not permit nullification of very much. Drug laws, for
instance, are constitutional and not the result of a narrow faction
shanghaiing the legislature to pass laws oppressive to the majority.
So you have zero support cited for most of the jury nullification you
seek to support.
And the only authority you cite even close to supporting nullification
at all is a Judge in Virginia who cites laws not like those you seek
to violate. He refers to unconstitutional laws, or those passed by the
few to harm the many. We don't have that.
What you have a complaint with, in reality, is that YOU are the few,
and don't like the views of the many. And you view these laws passed
by genuinely representative bodies as "oppresssive" in ways the West
Virginia judge would doubtless find wrong.
Indeed, I bet if you asked that West Virginia judge if you have a
right to nullify the things you want to nullify, he would strongly
oppose you.
SO I don't think even he, your only cite squarely discussing
nullification, is on your side.
So you have not presented any authority for your political views.
IMO..
Why don't you cite Madison, Jefferson etc??
>> >> > Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to Thomas Paine in 1789: "I
>> >> > consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by
>> >> > which a government can be held to the principles of its
>> >> > constitution."
>> >>
>> >> Again - so that they can not send a man to jail unless the facts
>> >> prove he really did the bad deed? So this does not support your
>> >> assertion since it is consistent with my view too.
We AGREE juries are buffers against tyranny. That is not the same as
saying Jurors have a right to act contrary to the provisions of law.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
.
>> > But, it IS NOT contrary to law for jurors to "to judge the justice
>> > of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion,
>> > unjust or oppressive,
>>
>> Ok. I think it is, in general, immoral for a Juror to do that, just
>> as it would be immoral for a Judge to make a decision contrary to
>> law, even though he could get away with it, legally.
>
> Assuming the Jurors are, for the most part, impartial toward the
>defendant (the one with the Rights to this Impartiality [laws secure
>Rights, they do not have Rights!]), how could their judgment over either
>the "defendant's guilt" or the "justice of the law" be anything other
>than their true judgment, and representative of the "State or district
>wherein the crime shall have been committed"?
Who says they get to impose their views of the "justice" of the law
over what the law is, any more than a Judge or President can do that?
Apparently a man named Spooner. SO? I can find men who believe it is
proper to kill all those who are disabled. So what?
Now the quotes posted here to support nullification are odd.
Typically, they do NOT mention nullification - only the right of
jurors to make decisions. But a right to make a decision is not the
same to decide contrary to the provisions of law.
There is Spooner. Who is this guy>
And then there is a West Virginia judge who talks not in general about
a right to nullify, but the odds that a jury would do so if the law
were ILLEGAL (so he agrees with me - jurors should obey the provisions
of law, and not nullify them) or "oppressive" laws passed when a
minority somehow shanghies a legislature and adopts "oppressive laws"
presumably also illegal (since govt must treat us all equally - per
the fourteenth amendment and he stresses a minority "oppressing" some
group). SO even this fellow seems to suggest jurors follow the law -
as opposed to statutes which violate it.
I am no expert on this. But I can see many problems with individuals
taking the law into their own hands, and I have yet to see anyone I
ever heard of saying that jurors have a right to decide contrary to
what is legal.
Only Spooner, so far. Gotta look that guy up.
Would it be wrong for the President to ignore the law if he feels it
is not just?
If it is wrong for him to do that, how come you think it is not wrong
for a juror to do the same thing?
You can argue that the President can do a lot more harm - which I
guess is why we can remove him from office, and can not remove a
similarly renegade juror.
>
> Yes, it could be that a Juror just happens to seceretly enjoy
>performing the same "crime" as the defendant is being accused of, or he
>could have sliped through the investigators, and was partial toward the
>defendant. The latter of which could result in prosecution for purgery,
>and they'd most surely investigate such person much more throughly than
>before. The former of which, like it or not, is only representative of
>the "State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed",
>because, like it or not, unless their already convicted, their still a
>legeal citizen of the "State or district wherein the crime shall have
>been committed". Besides, even if they did seceretly enjoy performing
>the same "crime", if that crime was particularally heinous in nature,
>they'd be a fool to draw the attention they'd surely receive after such
>a judgment.
>
> Yet, STILL, ONLY if you can prove partiality toward, for or against,
>the defendant, can you disqualify them, and must accept their judgment
>as their judgment.
I agree I must accept the results of the jury. Final say. Not same as
saying a juror should decide contrary to provisions of law.
Even if it was later proved such a juror did indeed
>enjoy the same crime, it can STILL not be proved they didn't pass their
>honest judgment as to the defendant's innocence!
>
>
>> A Supreme Court justice can make decisions which are not legal - and
>> his decision is completely legal, I guess.
>
> Yes, it is. And remember you said this.
They can get away with it. Is that your standard for proper behavior?
>
>
>> But do you urge such justices to ignore the law, and make decisions
>> they know to violate it?
>
> How can you know what they know?
There might be ways, based on how sound their written opinion is. But
we are ASSUMING a juror voting contrary to what he thinks the law is.
That is the definition of jury nullification, I think.
And, and the act of either a Judge
>or Juror judging a particular law IS NOT violating that particular law!
>When, in their judgment, the evidence or the law is wrong, yes!
No. If a Justice thinks that the law prohibits having sex with six
year olds, but rules to free the defendant because he does not like
that law, then he decides "contrary to the provisions of law" and he
does not have a legal right to do that. What he has is the legal POWER
to do that.
>
>> Same with jurors.
>
> And, remember you said this. In the court room, each Juror has the
>power of a Judge over the defendant's innocence, while guilt must be a
>colaboration between all twelve jurors.
SO you support Judges who make decisions contrary to the provisions of
law?
And when the President makes decisions contrary to the provisions of
law, and knows that he can get away with it -you support that as his
right as well>?
>
>> > and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution
>> > of such laws." In fact, it's their duty.
>>
>> No.
>
> You don't remember what you say?
I remember some of it. Why?
>
>
>> It is the duty of the juror, the Judge, the Supreme Court justice
>> to decide consistent with the law.
>
> It is the duty of the Judge or the Juror to pass judgment on the
>guilt of the defendant, or the justness of the law.
No. We have legislatures to decide on the justness of the law. That is
their job. THe judge has the job of applying that law to facts.
In the case of a
>Jury, each Juror has the absolute power to judge the defendant innocent,
>or the law unjust, while it takes a colaboration of all twelve jurors to
>judge the defendant guilty and the law just.
You are just making up the "just" part. Unless you think Spooner is
somehow the law.
>
>
>> Even if it is "legal" for them to decide contrary to the law. I.e.,
>> the POWER to act contrary to law is not the RIGHT to do so.
>
> "I.e." Nothing! If it is "legal" how can it be contrary to law?
I am using legal here to mean - they get the final say, without legal
review, that they can get away with it. But while it is "legal" in
this sense for them to decide contrary to the dictates of law, I do
not think they have the "right" to do it, nor do I think they should
do it.
Do you?
>
> Whew,,,
>
>
>> > > But I agree that that is probably part of what might have
>> > > motivated
>> > >
>> > > So now, as opposed to when folks had no say in govt, there is
>> > > rightly a big burden for you to prevail when you conclude that
>> > > laws are part of tyranny etc.
>> >
>> > But, aren't you now arguing against "folks" having just such "say"?
>>
>> I think it is ok to violate a law (decide contrary to) requiring Jews
>> to be killed, in a tyrannical government, but it is not ok to violate
>> a law in a nation with a legitimate government, where laws are fairly
>> determined, based on procedures likely to lead to pretty good results.
>> I may not think that a 12 percent tariff on imported bows and arrows
>> is wise.
>
> What you think a Juror should think is irrelevant, and if such
>impositions were allowed, impartiality would be impossible!
I have a right to assert what I think should be.
>
>
>> I do not have a right to decide to repeal that law on my own.
>
> And, Jury Nulification is Not a Repeal of Law. Only Nulification.
It is a repeal in this case. Let me put it this way - who says the
juror is the one to decide how criminal law should attach to various
acts? That is contrary to the whole notion of our government.
>
>
>> Legislatures are the proper forum to make law,
>
> And, Jury Nulification is Not Making Law. Only Nulification.
Ah. Legislatures make laws, but those charged with carrying out its
provisions may properly ignore it, and act according to principles
they would prefer. So a President, a juror, a judge are under no moral
pressure to act in ways consistent with laws.
Laws would not mean much in your world.
>
>
>> and judges and jurors should not make up the laws themselves instead.
>
> Their not making up laws, their only Nulifying Laws they judge to be
>unjust, simply because they judge so, and/or they judge the defendant
>innocent dispite the evidence against them, again, simply because they
>judge so.
Fine. Don't complain the next time a Judge thinks that the state need
not comply with a particular law, and sends you to prison even though
you are innocent - because he thinks such a result would be just.
Because your views are dangerous.
Your logic supports that as moral.
That is not a good idea.
>> You have only one such clear statement - this Spooner guy. Period. SO
>> far.
>
> Mr. Tyrebiter, this debate has gone flat!
It's true. How come only spooner says what you assert?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Mildred Pierce
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> <mildre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <sb8p7ssedtuntk7gb...@4ax.com>,
> >
a
> >> juror, even if you disagree with it.
> >
> >If your claim is correct then please present this arguement that you
> >claim exists. Are you saying that jurors should obey the law that
says
> >jurors should throw out bad laws?
>
> If all officials entrusted to follow the law, including jurors,
> judges, Presidents, felt that they are morally permitted to ignore the
> law, and replace it with what they think SHOULD be the law, then
> respect for the law will collapse. As a result the govt will be free
> to base law on who is charged, and the tyranny of a govt with a
Jurors are a check against bad law. Jurors do not have the power (or
the right) to make law and can not replace bad law with good law.
> Respect for the law leads to more law abiding behavior, generally a
> good thing, and is essential for respect for govt, also generally a
> good thing in a place with good govt..
>
> And the law that says jurors should throw out bad laws does not exist,
> so I don't know how to answer that question.
It is good that you ask the question then.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>> Because the rule of law is important.
>
>Yes.
>
>> By following laws, instead of what we each think is right,
>> we are protected from the tyranny that will surely follow
>> when someone things that their notion of right means that
>> we should go to jail.
>
>Which is exactly why jury nullification is so important.
>
>They can't send anyone to jail unless they all, along
>with at least one judge, concur. But it takes only 1
>to set someone free, for surely tyranny would follow
>if they were to blindly follow the orders of the judge,
straw man. No one suggests blindly following a judge's instructions.
In addition, we have safeguards against a judge ordering jurors to
violate dictates of law.
Saying that jurors should violate dictates of law is not a good
response to saying a judge violating dictates of law is bad.
Indeed, if the Juror should violate dictates of valid law, to do what
he thinks is just, instead, then why should not a judge do the same
thing? Why should not the President similarly do the same thing - have
the army kill the congress because he thinks it is just for him to do
that?
Do you support the rule of law, or do you not?
>substituting only that one person's notion of right to
>sending people to jail instead of exercising their own
>responsibility to judge the circumstances, the person's
>actions, and the law in question.
Our form of government gives the job of judging the wisdom, the
justness, of laws to the legislative branch, with input by the
President (he can veto). No place in the constitution does it say that
a juror may properly decide to act contrary to the provisions of valid
law, simply because he finds it "unjust."
ANd the result of such a view would be bad - law would become
unpredictable and unfair in application.
>
>By following the laws in context, instead of setting
>aside their foundations, we are protected from tyranny.
I though you supported the right of a juror to NOT follow law.
Example: we have laws against sex with six year olds. A juror who
finds this unwise can properly acquit?
WOuldn't that be a bad idea?
>By questioning orders that are unconstitutional or
>otherwise violate human rights, we are protected from
>tyranny.
Unconstitutional - you may have a point. I want jurors to follow the
law too. But you propose more, I think - that jurors substitute their
view of WISDOM of laws for those of democratically chosen
representatives. I think our laws about a lot of things are not wise.
But I surely don't think I have a right to replace the judgement of
legislatures with my own notion of what is just. For instance, I think
we should get rid of all guns, and send anyone caught with a gun to
jail for at least six months. But that is not the law. So I have no
right to find someone accused of speeding guilty because he had a
legal gun in his car - even though I find it WISE to send such a
person to jail.
DO you really want me acting according to my idiosyncratic view of
what is "best?"
If you think a juror can do what he idiosyncratically thinks just -
why can't a judge do that? Or a President, storming the capitol with
troops to do what is best?
On "human rights" not mentioned in the constitution. You probably have
a very different view of what such rights are from what I think they
are. The rule of law is valuable - predictable laws are really the
only protection we have against tyranny. If you let people do what is
consistent with unspecified human rights, then the govt would soon say
that your odd views risk threatening human rights, and, even though
there is no written law that what you do is illegal, the unwritten law
applies to you. ANd you go to jail.
Freedom requires laws in black and white. If you pull them from the
ether, then someone else someday will do the same thing, and the
majority will oppress the minority.
>
>> A system of laws, reached through procedures which are
>> fair and just, is our only protection from tyranny -
>> though it does not offer total protection.
>
>When the USA develops such a system, let me know
>so we can all celebrate. Until then, we'll be using
>every tiny scrap of a hope of a means to cut down on
>the power & depradations of the current corrupt regime.
You are like the Ayatollah. He did not like the written laws. He
ordered his judges to replace such written laws with the "real" laws.
As a result of doing the right thing, instead of the written down
thing, Judge Khalid would sentence to death a hundred at a time,
without even giving them a chance to speak.
That is the route - the route of doing the right thing as opposed to
doing the written down thing, developed through procedures with
safeguards - which, inadvertently, you are suggesting.
It is ironic - you decry tyranny, and propose gutting the rule of law,
the surest route to it.
I think our founding fathers have more wisdom than you do, or than I
do. If they thought jurors should be able to replace law with what
they think "just" then they would have put it in the COnstitution with
crystal clarity.
You risk a lot to doubt their wisdom about government.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>> I think it is ok to violate a law (decide contrary to) requiring Jews
>> to be killed, in a tyrannical government, but it is not ok to violate
>> a law in a nation with a legitimate government, where laws are fairly
>> determined, based on procedures likely to lead to pretty good results.
>
>Well, then, we're in agreement after all.
>
>As soon as such procedures are adopted and adhered to then
>we'll be able to ease up a bit. Until then, however...
Your complaint is with our form of government, then.
Others do not share your view. Indeed, you likely do not REALLY share
it since you stay here. And if your approach were widely adopted, then
the support for our govt would likely erode - since the rule of law
would be eviscerated.
I think that would be a horrible thing.
But if you think we are living in hell, in violation of law, then I
will forgive you your well-intentioned, but I think misguided, deeds.
But if I were on a jury, and you were on trial for disobeying some
law, please understand that my sympathy for your mistaken view of the
world would not permit me to bend the law to spare you.
I think of the sad fellows called "tax protesters." I have known a
few. They typically end up fouling up their lives, and causing great
pain to their families. They are sincere in their nutty views - but
were I on a jury on violating tax laws, I would, with great sadness,
have a duty to find them criminals.
Bertrand Russell said (as I recall the words): I do not complain when
I am punished for breaking the law. I only complain when I am
prevented from breaking it.
Do you find that an acceptable standard for people like the sad tax
protestors?
>
>"The Constitution's guarantee of a trial by jury, for
> instance, has a purely political dimension. It reserves
> to local communities the power to nullify oppressive laws
> by refusing to convict. The process is set up to protect
> certain important political rights, such as freedom of
> speech and freedom from oppressive laws that may be passed
> when one narrow interest group momentarily captures the
> government. This is politics in the highest sense - jury
> trials, elected judges, elected prosecutors, and the power
> of executive clemency all unite to mitigate the
> opportunities for tyranny." --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court
Look at what he says. He talks about a juror voting against an ILLEGAL
law - one which violates your legal right to speech for instance.
Thus he does NOT say that the juror should replace the real law with
what the juror thinks is a just law. This part does NOT support your
views. Then he talks about "oppressive laws...passed by a narrow
interest group." Again, oppressive laws, granting benefits to a narrow
interest group, and harming the interest of a broader group, are also
likely illegal - because the fourteenth amendment strikes down laws
which fail to treat all folks "equally." So, again, this judge seems
to refer to a right of the juror to FOLLOW the law, the real law, and
not a right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
Plus he is one guy in West Virginia. I can find one guy in West
Virginia who thinks it is unjust to make it illegal for him to have
sex with his three year old daughter.
>
>"The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than
> what we have now." --- John David Galt
As I recall, the Constitution provides for legislatures to make laws,
and does not give a right to Presidents, judges, jurors to act in
violation of its provisions. Yet you urge that jurors do what is just,
in their view, rather than what laws provide. You have "dirty hands"
in that you propose disobeying dictates of law, so you can not
complain if someone else does the same thing.
Turn straight - come to accept the law as your saviour - and then you
can complain about other sinners.
>
>"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty to find
> the verdict according to his own best understanding,
> judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to
> the direction of the court." --- John Adams, 1771
So what? THis does not say jurors should act contrary to law. Only
that they should be independent of judges. I.e., a judge tells you to
ignore the law - and decide on a more likely than not standard of
guilt. You should ignore him.
Look- find quotes which CLEARLY state support for you - not quotes
which could just as logically support MY view. Your reliance on quotes
which don't actually support a juror's right to act contrary to the
provisions of law is probably telling - don't you think?
If this "right" exists - how come you can';t find a clear statement of
it? An old dude founding the nation saying - a Juror may decide
contrary to the dictates of law, if he thinks that is a just thing to
do.
Why can't you find such a quote if that is the way it is?
THINK ABOUT THAT QUESTION PLEASE.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Mildred Pierce
do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:29:40 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >Good luck finding subversives on the jury - I just think you might
> >yell Charge - and find no one is marching behind you on this one.
> A subversive on the jury would be a juror who refused to judge the
> law.
Right! exactly! Even if 95% of the population refused to judge the law
they would still be subversives. Thankfully the jury vote is a
unanymous vote and it only requires one juror to nullify the law. That
is why it doesn't matter that when you yell charge there is no one
marching behind you. Jury Nullification requires that you only yell
charge! Great isn't it!
> The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
> FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
Love that quote!.. I want a bumper sticker like that.
Michael Zarlenga
: Ok. I think it is, in general, immoral for a Juror to do that, just as
: it would be immoral for a Judge to make a decision contrary to law,
: even though he could get away with it, legally.
I disagree 100%. IMO, morality has no formal correlation
to the law.
If the law says that any negro runaway caught in the north
must be returned to slavery in the south (as the law DID
SAY, at one time) would it really be immoral to refuse to
send that human being back?
I don't think so.
Yet, your line in the sand clearly places that decision on
the side of "immoral" since it would be contrary to the law.
It's worth mentioning that Jury Nullification helped free
many slaves caught in the north. It also helped end the
Salem Witch Trials.
Is it immoral to refuse to kill a woman even though the law
says she must die if she's a "witch?"
What you see as an immoral choice, many others see as the
*most* moral choice.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga
: judges, Presidents, felt that they are morally permitted to ignore the
: law, and replace it with what they think SHOULD be the law, then
: respect for the law will collapse.
News flash, George, if laws do NOT have popular public sup-
port (e.g.: the War on Drugs) then respect for the laws has
ALREADY collapsed and Jury Nullification is the RESULT of
that collapse, not the cause.
When the pubic supports the laws, JN is not a problem.
When the legislators IGNORE the people, JN becomes more
prevalent.
JN is one of the many systems of checks and balances
that are built into the American legal system.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So a judge, for instance, should make decisions contrary to the law
>> as the legislature wrote it?
>
> A Judge or a Jury both have Right and an Obligation to judge both the
>law and the defendant, therefore doing so CAN NOT be contrary to the
>law!
>
> But, we've been over, and over, this before.
Judging a law is not the same as deciding contrary to what it says,
because you think it is unwise. Nullification is the latter, in my
mind.
DO you support the right and obligation of a judge to replace the law
as written with his own contradictory view of what is just?
And Presidents - they also have the right and obligation to replace
laws as written with their contradictory notion of what is just?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>> ...our form of govt was arranged for jurors to vote innocent when
>>> they feel the law is unjust.'
>
>>> Is such nullification by a juror simply what you consider a good idea,
>>> or do you think it is part of our system of government, intended by
>>> the Big Fathers as what should happen?
>
>Yes. It is all 3.
>
>"The Constitution's guarantee of a trial by jury, for
> instance, has a purely political dimension. It reserves
> to local communities the power to nullify oppressive laws
> by refusing to convict. The process is set up to protect
> certain important political rights, such as freedom of
> speech and freedom from oppressive laws that may be passed
> when one narrow interest group momentarily captures the
> government. This is politics in the highest sense - jury
> trials, elected judges, elected prosecutors, and the power
> of executive clemency all unite to mitigate the
> opportunities for tyranny." --- Richard Neely WV Supreme Court
1. How come you must cite some guy in West Virginia, instead of
someone I have ever heard of? Who says this guy is right instead of
me?
2. He does NOT say that jurors have the right to decide contrary to
the dictates of law - which is what jury nullification is. He says
instead that if an illegal statute is passed, then it need not be
followed. Note that he refers first to a clearly illegal law which
violates your important political RIGHTS - i.e., that the statute
contradicts the First Amendment. SO the judge says the OPPOSITE of
what you propose - he says that the juror should FOLLOW THE LAW, and
not follow what the statute says. On oppressive laws passed by a
temporary minority - maybe he does support you here. On the other
hand, such laws are also likely illegal. THe fourteenth amendment bars
unequal treatment of citizens. An oppressive law, passed by a small
minority faction, very likely does NOT treat citizens equally. ANd so
it too would be illegal. So AGAIN this judge says that jurors have a
right to OBEY the REAL law.
Now I think you disagree with him, and say that jurors have a right to
strike down laws clearly consistent with the constitution, and
properly adopted by legislatures, because they are not JUST. IS that
correct?
This quote does NOT support any such right, even if we were to cede
this matter to one guy in West Virginia.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>> Logical Pike wrote:
>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2000-01-13 08:58:06 GMT, Logical Pike wrote:
>>>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2000-01-12 11:25:24 GMT, Logical Pike wrote:
>>>>>>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
>>>>> There is a pretty decent argument that you should obey
>>>>> the law when a juror, even if you disagree with it.
>
>>>> What is the argument that you are suggesting?
>>>> How is a juror "obeying" the law when he is in the jury room?
>>>> The juror is deciding, also, the justification of the law..
>
>That is how the juror is obeying the law, by deciding.
>It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it, and if each
>juror did not, but allowed some judge or prosecutor or defense
>attorney to decide for hir, then the juror would NOT be doing
>hir job.
>
>>> We have a moral obligation to obey law, because otherwise there
>>> would be a lot of lawbreaking, leading to bad things.
>
>Would be?! We see government functionaries breaking the law
>all the time. It is a bad thing.
>
>>> We have a moral obligation to obey just laws...
>>> A juror obeys law when a statute says: if you do X, then
>>> you pay a price Y, and X was done, and the juror says: guilty.
>
>And s/he's also obeying the law when s/he says "not guilty".
>
None of your quotes says that a juror should decide contrary to the
dictates of law.
>
>"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man,
> by which a government can be held to the principles of its
> constitution." --- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
>
>"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
> controversy." --- John Jay 1794 GA v Brailsford
>
>"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
> --- Samuel Chase, 1804
>
>The jury has "unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard
> of the instruction given by the trial judge." --- US v Dougherty 1972
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>> Logical Pike <logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > What are your ulterior motives, George? You seem to be an
>> > apologist for big brother.
>>
>> I would say an apologist for the rule of law.
>
> Dispite their injustice?
Yes. Our freedom does NOT come from those with power deciding to do
what is "just." It comes from the protection of legal procedures which
decide what is "just." When the individual decision maker is free to
make this call, then he will put "bad" people in jail without the
checks and balances protecting us all.
You propose a system such as when the Ayotollah took over Iran. He
instructed judges to do the right thing, and not the things written
down in books.
What exactly do you think the rule of law is?
Why don't you understand that it protects us from tyranny?>\\
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
pro...@my-deja.com
> > > > >
> > > > > But I do not think that this is a fundamental right, any more
> > > > > than the Judge has a right to disobey the law, or a President
> > > > > has the right to disobey the law.
> > > >
> > > > But exercising a Right IS NOT disobeying the law!
> > >
> > > There is no right of a juror to decide contrary to law.
> >
> > But, exercising Jury Nulification IS their Right and therefore NOT
> > contrary to law!!! Get it?
>
> No. It is not their right. It is simply something wrong which they
> can pretty safely get away with without punishment. Get it?
Jurors are asked to judge the law and the defendant, and you think
their's something wrong when they can pretty safely get away with
judging the law and the defendant without punishment?!?
> Just as a judge can ignore the law and follow his own personal
> desires about society.
Yes, Judges have this power too, to make judgment and not be called
on it. And, that is EXACTLY why Jurors have the Right to Jury
Nulification, so that society, via their representation by Jury, can
counteract BAD laws passed by an offical's bad judgment.
Without judgment, their could be no laws to begin with to judge. To
ensure judgment remains mostly just and fair, Judges are allowed to
judge for the government, and Jurors are allowed to judge for society,
Each with equal powers. It's called checks and ballances. It's not
perfect, but neither are people.
> > > It is the right of a judge to pass judgment and/or sentence
> > > sentence.
> > >
> > > He has no right to do that contrary to what he knows the law says.
> >
> > Hahahahahaha!!!! YOU Just Said he has a Right to pass judgment
> > and/or pass sentence! So obviously, doing so would NOT be contrary
> > to the law!
>
> The right to decide is not the right to decide contrary to law.
>
> Or do you genuinely think that a Judge has a right to ignore the law?
You know what? Up until just now, I would have said that a Judge
does not have the Right to judge contrary to the Constitution. But,
you, Mr. Tyrebiter, have now changed my mind!!! Or rather, you prompted
me to change my own mind contrary to your position here! You watching
Nathan? Judges do indeed have Final and ABSOLUTE say over what they've
been asked to judge. But, I could ONLY recognize this Right IF, and
ONLY IF impartially selected Jurors in the district where the crime was
committed also have the same identical Right when being called to judge
a defendant and the laws.
> > You are trying to counter the legal Right to Jury Nullification
> > with an argument that isn't in opposition to this Right, then
> > apparently trying to assert or suggest that unless you can be
> > proved wrong, the Right to Jury Nullification is Wrong! Being
> > that Jury Nullification IS a Right, it Can NOT be contrary to
> > the law!
>
> Jurors have the right to decide guilt.
And, determing guilt requires they judge the justness of the law. If
the law is a guiltless crime, then they have the Right to judge the
defendant innocent.
> > > You propose that someone given the responsibility to carry out
> > > the law violate it.
> >
> > How is exercising a Right against the law?
>
> A right to decide (according to law) is not a right to decide
> contrary to law.
But, Jury Nullification is "according to law".
--
Email blocks all but personal list:
< http://www.dejanews.com/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=469015857.1 >
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<logic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Now, George, shame on you! You put words into our mouths. We are
>not ignoring unjust laws. Very much to the contrary. It is highly
>unlikely that ignoring laws dealing with drug usage would lead to
>problems in this country. It is the non-legalization of drugs which is a
>cause of several problems.
WHo gets to decide that in our system? The legislature.
There are good reasons for letting them decide what acts should be
punished, rather than letting each individual decision maker for the
govt have that call about what is wise.
> There is judicial nullification. Judges do it quite a bit.
SO you think they have a right to do that? That if the law says you
are innocent, that the judge should have the right to decide that you
are so dangerous that you should be locked up, even though the
legislature said you should go free?
Or that a judge should be able to decide that sex with an eight year
old is ok - and should have the right to set a defendant free because
it would be just?
Yes or no?
Does the judge have such a right?
Police
>use discretion. So do prosecutors all the time.
AN interesting argument. I concede that prosecutors, in the interest
of justice, must refrain from most prosecutions they legally could
bring, for various reasons.
> What your "rule of law"
>has led to is an epidemic of crime
Did you know that crime rates have been falling for decades? Or have
you made the common mistake of concluding, from increased TV coverage,
that the amount of crime has been rising?
Cities have more crime than rural areas. We have more people living in
cities now. I don't think we suffer an epidemic of crime. A teenager
threw a rock through my parked car's window one night. That's about it
for me for many, many years. When were you last the victim of a crime?
And the presence of crime does not refute the value of the rule of
law. I think I would be more worried with vigilantes, with officials
free to do what they idiosyncratically view as "just," with those with
idiosyncratic views setting Tim McVeigh free, and so on.
So I deny that we live in hell incarnate and that it is the fault of
the "rule of law."
>and the collapse of the family (a
>negative impact on many families). It has led to violent thugs being
>released to prey on children and adults alike.
Families have collapsed? Not mine. How about yours? Do you mean we can
get divorced now? I personally would call life hell if we were NOT
permitted to divorce. Do you refer to children born out of wedlock?
That is a problem. I think I spy a different cause for it - young men,
in some settings, can not make much money. One role of a husband is to
provide. If they are unable to provide, then they will not get married
(to the old degree). SO I view the flight of industry from inner
cities as the primary cause of unwed mothers. Not the "rule of law."
And the child harmer - a juror when faced with one who did that has
the right to set him free, because he is a victim of a horrible
childhood? Why do you say such things?
> Just what the drug war
>was designed to prevent. But, it is more important to have these drug
>users and sellers in prison. Is this what you want, George?
I do not want many people in jail for drug offenses. But it is not my
idiosyncratic call. On the whole, we avoid a life of hell better if we
have these representative guys make that call. If I got to undo the
law on this, someone else would undo the law permitting me to say that
Republicans are hardly better than murderers because they tried to
limit tobacco price increases after they got eight million dollars
from tobacco.
We don't want me sent to jail for that do we? So we want laws adopted
by negotiating our complicated system of checks and balances, instead
of letting single individuals to substitute their own values for those
procedural values. The rule of law, here, works pretty well. If we
attack it, as you suggest, then I think life would be worse.
Your rule
>of law allows idiots the excuse to sell drugs and make a ton of money.
>Why go to school and become a doctor and cure some human disease? I can
>tell by this discussion that it is too late in this country. We are
>screwed! I would think that there are a lot of well-meaning people who
>feel like you do, George. You need to look yourself in the mirror and
>realize that the "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" is germane
>to your viewpoint. I hope that I never have anybody like you on "my"
>jury. I don't want to hear you complaining if it ever gets to be too
>"late."
We differ. Better to resolve our differences according to the
constitution, than to just toss the thing overboard.
>
> How is possession of marijuana a crime? How, not why? Is it jury
>nullification to ponder this question? Anyhow, George, thanks for your
>time and responses. :-)
An interesting debate, and I have learned. I have moved closer to your
view than I was before. I find the prosecutorial discretion argument
interesting, and I must think about that analogy.
Thank you.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
pro...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Yes, the jurors have a right to judge the law and the facts of the
> > case. The Supreme Court has said that much. Read Jury Nullification
> > by Clay S. Conrad. You are right George, might does not make right.
> > This is why the state is wrong in incarcerating persons that have
> > not violated the harm principle. I guess might makes right when it
> > comes to the government.
>
> someone oddly to accept me as a juror (since I would tell the truth
> in voir dire, and indicate such sympathies if asked about them),
Jurors are being asked to judge the guilt of the defendant and the
justness of the law. It is quite impossible to judge the guilt of the
defendant BEFORE hearing the facts. BUT, as laws are their own facts,
it is also quite impossible to avoid judgment as to the justness of a
law even before entering the court room!
Jurors should NOT even be asked if they have any sympathies for or
against any particular law, as the only answer they could provide which
would not give the prosecutor an excuse to disqualify them would have to
be a lie!
> But I would never claim to have done the "moral" thing if I
> nullified.
Even if not nullifying would have been "immoral"?
> I suggest that you be honest - and just say that you are a subversive
> who wants to tear down certain laws.
So, the tearing down of slavery laws was "subversive"?
So, the tearing down of racial laws was "subversive"?
Yes, I want to tear down drug laws, as I consider THEM "subversive".
> And realize that you do some harm in proposing that.
Well, spank me running!