Posted on 05/05/2009 8:28:39 AM PDT by SmithL
Thank you, Justice Marshall.
It is an act of mercy much like a governor's pardon power. Just as a governor's pardon power does not destroy the law, neither does juror nullification destroy the law.
It used to bother me in much the same way it bothers you. Not any longer. I've lived long enough to see and understand the wisdom behind it. A truly free people must have the power of juror nullification.
BINGO we have a winner, We are a SELF REGULATING society, anyone who listens to what a judge tells them , with regards to the “LAW” should never be a JUROR.
“The Jury has the right to judge the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
John Jay
We have all witnessed how the President's pardon power has been blatantly abused by BJ Clinton. It's clear, then, that whether the exercise of jury nullification is an "act of mercy" depends entirely on the members of the jury at the time and their motives.
Clinton's pardons were certainly no act of mercy.
Thanks for the info. You sound knowledgeable enough that I won’t have to check it out. It still sounds sort of like vigilante justice to me.
Also, I always considered jury nullification to be pre-trial publicity which prejudiced the jury pool.
All your suppositions are far beyond the reach of a juror. I know what you are saying is in fact happening in many areas but the solution is far beyond jury duty.
beyond the reach of a juror?????? guess the common man is not good enough to make a choice on right or wrong??? the common man cannot figure how to judge someone using the concept of inalienable Rights????
so why is the common man not able to use this power correctly, yet you assume judges in black robes can use this power correctly???
why are you so aginst the common man acting on his beliefs of inalienable rights, or on his belief that teh law is wrong???
why do you hold judges so high, and common man so low, are judges better than the rest of us??? why even bother with a jury in that case????
I am reminded of those who oppose the death penalty yet get on juries who decide cases that could lead to that penalty. Because they disagree with the death penalty they will hang a jury and cause a retrial of obviously guilty people.
Don’t assume that all people who do and will use your approach are those who agree with you. Some are your enemies.
i'm sorry, i know you are having an in depth conversation but this just jumped out at me.a jury is there to decide if a written law has been broken or not. juries do not make policy.
juries deal with an action by a person/entity and decide if that action has violated an existing statute. at least in criminal proceedings.
oh how true, some folks would never convict for a certain crime or other reason (race, religion, etc...) however I say far better 100 guilty go free than one innocent be condemmed to prison. thus i do understand some bad guys might go free, however there is always the re-trail in the case of a hung jury. so there is still a second and even third chance at prosecution, hence the chances of one wacked out juror letting a guilty guy go is slim. however if there is a large percentage of population that refuses to convict certain crimes, you can bet that prosecutors will give up.
as i said, I could never ever in good moral conscience imprison a man for a bad law violation, like a hate crime, or gun violation, or such nanny state BS laws.
If we the jury puplic can prevent sucsesful prosecution fo bad laws, it is our duty to do so as citizens. remeber all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. If i see the government violating them rights, I have a moral obligation to defend that man, and vote not guilty.
just wait until Obamas Hate crime laws come after YOUR free speech, and you find that YOU are on the defense to keep YOU out of jail. YOU will best hope there are several folks on the jury of my mind set, you better hope that, else you is goooooing down sucka.
try placing yourself in defense of a bad law. and remeber we have court that make up bad laws, all this stuff about liberal judges making law, we got news, they do make law (illegally) and they enforce it. even the voters wishes on laws are ignored by some judges. many laws are corrupt, made by corrupt men, it is up to use ,t he people to fight them laws every time, everyway, all the time, ecspecially when on jury duty. if the law is bad, you must not vote guilty, you must not vote to inprison a man if the law he violated is not right, not constitutional, aginst our inalienable Rights. who are you to inprison someone for a bad law violation, anyone who does has failed society, by wrongly depriving a man of his rights.
as i said, I could never ever in good moral conscience imprison a man for a bad law violation, like a hate crime, or gun violation, or such nanny state BS laws.
With this I agree as well as with the point of bad judges making law. California, with their often passed propositions which are ignored by the government and some judges, is a good example.
However, I don't think each juror should be the Supreme Court and decide for themselves whether a law is good or bad. In the cases you cited, where the laws are so bad they are generally opposed, I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.