Jury Nullification

[Keyser_Soze]

"Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard – a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it.

Thomas Jefferson said, "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."


Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn, who was charged with preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit – and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. Under such duress, most jurors paid the fines. However, one juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. As a result, Chief Justice Vaughan issued an historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell's Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury.


Earlier in America, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. (Zenger's Case, 1735) His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.

Zenger's defense asked the jury to make use of their own consciences and, even though the judge ruled that the truth was no defense, they acquitted him. The jury's nullification in this case is praised in history textbooks as a hallmark of freedom of the press in the United States.

At the time of the American Revolution, the jury was known to have the power to be the judge of both law and fact. In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)


And this stuff happened when we only had a few laws, compared to the millions upon millions we have today... and they continue to grow, each one taking away a piece of our freedoms. That's what laws do, take away freedoms..... but I suppose those of you here who make your living off of 'the law' wouldn't be bothered or have any conflicts in such matters.

[jk]

That's what laws do, take away freedoms.....

that's a matter of perspective. I believe many laws ensure rights. Name a right a law takes away.

but I suppose those of you here who make your living off of 'the law' wouldn't be bothered or have any conflicts in such matters.

I don't have a problem with jury nullification. I can't remember the last time it was knowingly utilized but I am sure it is used more than most people realize.

[KeyWestDan]

And is there some flipping point to your essay?

Jury nulification is legal, but nobody can tell a jury about it. Jury panels generally agree with the law. There are very few times that a jury is not going to agree with the law. So you think you are special or something, or do you just like to hear yourself talk?

And your point is what exactly?

[Keyser_Soze]

that's a matter of perspective. I believe many laws ensure rights. Name a right a law takes away.
----------------------------------------------------------------
How many 'laws' were there when the first car was invented pertaining to the owning and operating of a car? Before there were choices, now there are mandates that punish all of those things that used to be rights. Now it's a 'privilege'? and there are probably well over 1,000, if not more. And they continue to grow. I used to have the right to choose to not wear a seat belt, now I no longer have that freedom to choose (without risking punishment).

And please don't get silly and play semantics, I'm not saying murder is a right unless u get caught and punished.



I don't have a problem with jury nullification. I can't remember the last time it was knowingly utilized but I am sure it is used more than most people realize.

So we have something in common. Now clean out ur inbox/outbox biotch

[jk]

How many 'laws' were there when the first car was invented pertaining to the owning and operating of a car? Before there were choices, now there are mandates that punish all of those things that used to be rights. Now it's a 'privilege'? and there are probably well over 1,000, if not more. And they continue to grow. I used to have the right to choose to not wear a seat belt, now I no longer have that freedom to choose (without risking punishment)

those laws are to preserve MY rights even though you see them as infringing upon yours. As is often said, your rights are without limit as long as you do not infringe upon another's rights.

seatbelt; if you get hurt, it costs ME money. I have the right to not be penalized for your accident. If you wearing a belt prevents me having to spend money, then you not wearing one infringes upon my rights to control my money.

how about a law that actually infringes on your rights that is not actually a preservation of another's rights?

[Moderator]

Keyser, please post your debates and hypotheticals ONLY in the Debate forum.

The other forums are reserved for questions of actual legal problems. Thanks.

[Keyser_Soze]

those laws are to preserve MY rights even though you see them as infringing upon yours. As is often said, your rights are without limit as long as you do not infringe upon another's rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You have a right to absolute safety do you? Imagine that, 10 million 'laws' to preserve your 'right' to absolute safety' and you can still get killed slipping in the shower or tripping over the carpet in your home and cracking your scull open on some hard object.





seatbelt; if you get hurt, it costs ME money.
----------------------------------------------------
Actually I may die because I was NOT wearing a seatbelt and SAVE you money. I am all for insurance companies establishing rates based on cost benefit analysis of their customers and passengers. Private business, not government mandate.




I have the right to not be penalized for your accident. If you wearing a belt prevents me having to spend money, then you not wearing one infringes upon my rights to control my money.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the seat belt distracts me and leads to the cause of my accident. Are you willing to cough up the money to pay for that? Also, there is no reason that one person must pay for another persons mistakes or misdeeds. That may be the way it is now, but that argument is simply saying:
That status quo is the status quo.

Not to mention this is ONE LAW, I would dread to read each and every law on the books about owning and operating a motor vehicle, not to mention finding the person willing to defend each and every one of them, and each and every one of them to come......


how about a law that actually infringes on your rights that is not actually a preservation of another's rights?

You think these do not exist?

Laws limit behavior/choice through threat of punishment of making certain choices. I am probably for all 'laws' that 97% of the population is for. Let private business, let competition- instead of incompetent gubament, a territorial monopoly over the usa outlawing competition and favoring the uber rich at the expense of the rest of us compete for our business and keep costs to a minimum and quality at its highest.

[jk]

You have a right to absolute safety do you?

I never said such a thing.

Actually I may die because I was NOT wearing a seatbelt and SAVE you money.

You might but I know too many vegetable farms where the people didn't die.

. I am all for insurance companies establishing rates based on cost benefit analysis of their customers and passengers. Private business, not government mandate.

but the problem is, your $5million dollars to keep the vege alive for 20, 30 ,40 years comes out of my pocket regardless who makes the rules.

Maybe the seat belt distracts me and leads to the cause of my accident.

and maybe you want to make up BS excuses as well.

Also, there is no reason that one person must pay for another persons mistakes or misdeeds.

but that isn't how the world works. If you go to a veggie farm, I pay for it. It is that simple.

Not to mention this is ONE LAW, I would dread to read each and every law on the books about owning and operating a motor vehicle, not to mention finding the person willing to defend each and every one of them, and each and every one of them to come......

it goes way beyond motor vehicle laws.

I am probably for all 'laws' that 97% of the population is for

that's an outright lie. You claim you are for anarchy. There can be no laws if there is anarchy. They are mutually exclusive.

let competition- instead of incompetent gubament, a territorial monopoly over the usa outlawing competition and favoring the uber rich at the expense of the rest of us.

Oh, you mean like let the banks lend foolish loans to people that should never be allowed to borrow money?

If you let banking run rampant, Bernie Madoff would be a hero in the banking world and everybody would try to emulate him.

or allow the auto manufacturers to save 29 cents (or some such foolishly small number) on every car for a known defect that caused Pinto's to burn up?

Toyota would love to have government oversight dissappear right about now. They would also love to see all laws disappear so they couldn't be sued for the deaths their self accelerating machines have caused.

Did you hear about the people that died when their Toyota SUV flipped and the roof crushed? Sure, it was designed to have 1/2 inch between the required crushing weight on top of the roof and an average height driver. What happens when you are an inch taller than average?



Ya, letting private industry make their own rules is really working out well.

and if you haven't noticed, the government specifically works to prevent monopolies. It is against the law for a company to work to obtain a monopoly. Remember Ma Bell? Standard Oil?

the government is the only entity that prevents Apple from buying all of their competition and squashing them. They currently have $40 billion dollars in corporate cash, CASH, let alone their credit lines of borrowed money. That would buy a lot of their competition if they could.

No laws, no FDCPA; no FDA; no FCC; no DOT; no NHTSA; no FBI, Secret Service, or CIA.

Do you really want Osama living next door to you? Well, no government and there would be little to prevent it.

[Keyser_Soze]

I never said such a thing.

You might but I know too many vegetable farms where the people didn't die.

but the problem is, your $5million dollars to keep the vege alive for 20, 30 ,40 years comes out of my pocket regardless who makes the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lie, a small portion comes from you. Besides, this might be the status quo today, this does not mean it must be this way for eternity.



but that isn't how the world works. If you go to a veggie farm, I pay for it. It is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------maybe veggie farms shouldn't exist. Maybe it costs more paying for people wearing seat belts in bad accidents than the money that is saved from those who die in bad accidents NOT wearing seatbelts, thereby saving you money.



it goes way beyond motor vehicle laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------
How many laws actually exist in the usa? How many existed 200 years ago? Who is paying for the creation of these new laws you argue for? You don't want me to force you to pay for a veggie farm but you want to force me to pay for a law that keeps a teenager from getting a gubament loan to go to college because he was caught with marijuana when a rapist can qualify for that loan....


that's an outright lie. You claim you are for anarchy. There can be no laws if there is anarchy. They are mutually exclusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Semantics, replace 'laws' with 'behaviors'.



Oh, you mean like let the banks lend foolish loans to people that should never be allowed to borrow money?
----------------------------------------------------------------
When they know the gubament is gonna pay for it, I mean me, why wouldn't they?


or allow the auto manufacturers to save 29 cents (or some such foolishly small number) on every car for a known defect that caused Pinto's to burn up?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Let the buyer beware. Maybe you like to buy worthless shit, I don't.



Toyota would love to have government oversight dissappear right about now. They would also love to see all laws disappear so they couldn't be sued for the deaths their self accelerating machines have caused.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Let the customer choose.


Did you hear about the people that died when their Toyota SUV flipped and the roof crushed? Sure, it was designed to have 1/2 inch between the required crushing weight on top of the roof and an average height driver. What happens when you are an inch taller than average?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Did u hear about the old lady that tripped in a pot hold and died?



Ya, letting private industry make their own rules is really working out well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
All business is overseen by gubament, gubament sets the rules, not the businesses because they all operate inside territorial monopolies controlled by force/threat of force (government).


and if you haven't noticed, the government specifically works to prevent monopolies. It is against the law for a company to work to obtain a monopoly. Remember Ma Bell? Standard Oil?
----------------------------------------------------------------
If a company can provide me with the best product at the cheapest price I am all for it. I don't care if they are the only one in the business or if there are 10,000 competitors.



the government is the only entity that prevents Apple from buying all of their competition and squashing them. They currently have $40 billion dollars in corporate cash, CASH, let alone their credit lines of borrowed money. That would buy a lot of their competition if they could.
----------------------------------------------------------------
We got along just fine trading amoung ourselves without giving a cut to gubament for a long time, with a long enough transition we could do the same again.

No laws, no FDCPA; no FDA; no FCC; no DOT; no NHTSA; no FBI, Secret Service, or CIA.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh like the laws that send non violent poeple to privately owned prisons and charge me for it. Then release them and they go to shelters I pay for them to live at until they get caught stealing again and go back to institution A, then to institution B, costing me a couple million per person. Without government these people would not be able to steal from their neighbors and get free room and board for life paid for by me. Gubament hides them from natural consequences, which i pay for.

Do you really want Osama living next door to you? Well, no government and there would be little to prevent it.

The war on terror is a scam my friend. No real identified enemy so the war will never end. But my freedoms are encroached upon in the process, as well as my wallet pilfered. Have you ever heard of war profiteering?

[mamabear2102003]

Not to break up the party you guys have going on, but what about laws limiting the right to smoke, even in privately owned businesses, and in the open air? Does this not take away the rights of those that partake in a legal activity? You can argue protection of others rights, to a certain degree, but when those rights are taken away even in open air space or privately owned clubs (including veterans clubs) and businesses, you are taking away basic rights of a large part of the population.