Thanks for the info. One question though aren't jurors lectured before deliberation that they are to base their decisions on the law and not personal opinion? It seems to me while jurors might disregard the law they are supposed to uphold it.
They are instructed as such but, to be honest, once the "not guilty" verdict is signed it's over. No appeals from the state are allowed in criminal proceedings and it would be extremely hard to prove that all twelve jurors were engaging in jury nullification in any case.
Drunk drivers willfully break the law and endanger those around them with an extremely lethal weapon. They pose a much greater danger than unarmed burglars outside of a house. I can't believe you would have a problem opening fire on drunks as they exit the bar on the way to their cars. Anyone who would drive drunk would RAPE BABIES!!!!!
No problem. Luckily I got out of there just in time before I became completely jaded about my fellow human beings and I'll be doing civil work this summer.
I would be signing the "Not guilty" section - no matter what the law stated. Just because something is or isn't a law doesn't make it right, if you disagree, I think you have a right to make that decision. The founding fathers did the same thing, vote your concsience. DD
Selective enforcement of the Law D*mn . . .Dada . . that is . . kind of scary In fact . . . I know it happens all the time but When good people turn their head the other way If Rich Kid and Poor Kid .. both get caught with cocaine . . same amount Rich kid get misdemeanor possession and probabtion Poor Kid gets Felony Intent to Distribute and gets 6 yrs in prison Why would you be against that? If so . . why are you only against SOME SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW and not others? Who makes these rules? How will you feel when the selective enforcement goes against you? Rocket River
It happens all the time, and it is not just in rich neighborhoods, a good friend of mine is the DA in the Bronx, and they can't get any convictions because the people that live there - that sit on the jury - hate the police and let almost all drug related arrests go away scott free. So, selective enforcement is happening and will be happening.....sometimes if you disagree with a law you need to go with what you believe is right. DD
A first time offender would never get 6 years for felony intent to distribute. Most of the time even repeat offenders don't et 6 years.
Hey, we don't have to agree with it, but I wasn't in that jury box listening to all the testimony. I stand by my statement. Sometimes you have to interpet the law for each case as you see fit. DD
You're saying that if you think a law is "wrong" it's OK to nullify jury decisions based on personal belief. Think about that for a while. What if everyone thought this way? Maybe this song could be the theme music: Right ! now ! ha ha ha ha ha I am an antichrist I am an anarchist Dont know what I want but I know how to get it I wanna destroy the passer by cos i I wanna be anarchy ! No dogs body Anarchy for the u.k its coming sometime and maybe I give a wrong time stop a trafic line Your future dream is a shopping scheme cos i I wanna be anarchy ! In the city How many ways to get what you want I use the best I use the rest I use the enemy I use anarchy cos i I wanna be anarchy ! The only way to be ! Is this the m.p.l.a Or is this the u.d.a Or is this the i.r.a I thought it was the u.k or just Another country Another council tenancy I wanna be an anarchist Oh what a name Get pissed destroy !
We would have a stronger country.... Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, that laws are written for a general purpose, but the facts of each case must be measured against those laws. And there are some cases where the law doesn't fit the case... Do you recall the guy in Georgia serving 20 years for getting a blow job? I would NEVER have followed the letter of the law in that case... The Law is not perfect it is a guideline...... It is up to each juror to interpet the law as it pertains to each case... DD
No it isn't. Your job is a juror is to apply the facts to the law. Your job isn't to forge social change. That's why we have elections. Your job is NOT to weigh the facts VERSUS the law. When you take the juror's oath you swear to uphold the law as it is. You don't swear to only uphold the laws you agree with.
You have contorted the concept of civil disobedience, with which I agree, into something else entirely. I understand where you're coming from, but your idealism is clouding your judgment. Drug laws are wrong let the dealer go free. $250 property damage or less should not be a misdemeanor, let the vandal go free. Graffiti is not a crime, it's art, let the kid spray paint your store wall. Prostitution laws are wrong let the pimp go free. Dog fighting should be legal, Michael Vick should go free. Abortion law is wrong convict her of murder. Shoplifting laws are wrong let the thief go free. Wife beating is OK if she deserves it, do not prosecute. Child abuse laws are wrong, let the parent whoop that kid however he sees fit. Child labor laws are wrong let that Nike plant hire whoever they want. ad inifinitum For every hair-brained situation you can name, there is probably someone who would agree with it.
I heard the 9-11 call on TV. Pretty evident what happened. The 9-11 operator was like, "don't do it man", but the guy was like, "I'm gonna go do it". Then he shot them both as they were running away. That shouldn't be legal but apparently it is.
