i suggest you dont waste your time, you dead wrong, and wont change my mind. four times now, give it up. I go by teh Constitution in jury casaes, not what some politican or judge made up. Some laws are bad, and I will not convict anyone of them. it is your duty to not convict for bad laws. anything less is immoral.
lets say your on a jury to decide the fate of a good citizen for violating the conceled weapons law in california. (where your Second Admendment Right is perverted by the anti-gun laws) he has the gun for protection, he is a nice family man, say he has been mugged before, the nieghborhood is dangerous, and he takes it with him for a walk, he has no crimminal record.
I would vote NOT guilty. becuase I do not belive the state has the right to deny a citezen to carry a gun.
same would be for a multi count robber. lets say he is charged with assult, kidnapping, robbery, havng a conceled weapon, speeding, resisting arrest. I would vote guilty for all but eh concelled weapons charge if I believed he did do all the “crimes” just is a conceled weapons law to me is not legal.
now we get to other laws like “Hate Crimes” how you could morally vote to convict someone of a “hate crime” even knowing full well that they did indeed break teh so called “law” is beyond me. I would NEVER convict anyone of a hate crime law violation period!!! We need 10% of the jurors to have that attitude, that would make that law too difficult to prosecute, and hence prosectutions for hate crimes would go down. If we all ac like unthinking immoral sheep, and follow the law as decreeded by the government, ignoring our own morals and Consititutional Rights, we will be no better than thoose evil folks that make the bad laws.
are you ok with “hate crime” laws??? restictive Un-Constitutional gun laws???
if we blindly give in to these bad laws as a juror, we are sowing the seeds of our destruction. I dont have no law dictonary to give you a “bad law” defination, but I have named some bad laws that jurors must decide the fate of good people on.
The Juror is one check and balance in the system. the juror has the power and the moral obligation to vote for what is right, and that more and more is not the same as the “law”.
I wonder how spineless you would be in a hate crime case?, a free speech case (fairness doctrine, abortion protest?) a gun technicallity law case (anti-2nd admend.)?? or any other over reaching morally wrong law.
We the People are the masters of government, not the other way around, We judge the People. the Jury system of common People are a check against / prosecutorial judical abuse. this moral obligation must be upheld, to free those charged with bad laws
frankly if you can’t name even ONE bad law, your no conservative, and have no friends here. The thing is, would you convict someone of a bad law?? If the answer is yes, then you have failed your patriotic duty to ensure freedom for all.
When laws are correct and moral, then you can decide to convict if the evidence supports that vote. if there are extenuating circumstances, then that is up to you to take into consideration also. but you must NEVER convict for a bad law, ever!!!
Back to the first story, the nice man up on charges for the gun law violation in strict anti-gun california. lets say lots of folks get on juries with this kind of case, and always vote innocent. how long until prosecutors give up on charging folks for a crime they can never get a conviction for???? what if the citizens peacefully rebel, by simply NOT CONVICTING folks for bad laws????? think about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!we vote on the jury to rid ourselves of bad laws. the legislative process is broken, the politicans have ignored the Bill of Rightds for decades. we can not fix it overnight, will you allow a good man to rot in jail, while awaiting the law to be fixed by our swift moving politicans??? Don’t hold your breath. the jury box is best way to wreck havoc on bad laws immediatly. We need more folks with the knowledge to do so.
you play god with a mans life on a jury, you better judge the law too. you better be up on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and subject the law to the same scrutiny you give the evidence presented at trial. any less is immoral, and ignoring your duty as a citizen on a jury.
Four times now you've refused to answer my question. You gave up before you started!
I go by teh Constitution in jury casaes, not what some politican or judge made up. Some laws are bad, and I will not convict anyone of them. it is your duty to not convict for bad laws. anything less is immoral.
Wow! Such a beautiful example of hypocrisy, in such a small space.
You go by the Constitution, huh? Would you kindly point out where the Constitution gives a juror the power to ignore the law, ignore his sacred oath to uphold that law, and decide all by himself that the law which was created by the authority granted by that Constitution is "bad"?
SHOW ME THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION!
You don't follow the constitution, you throw it out the window when you don't like the law.
That attitude is NO different from Justice Douglas who found "emanations" from "penumbras" to justify HIS feeling that anti-abortion laws were "bad".
I mean, hey, if the law is bad, it's fine to ignore it, right?