Slashdot Mirror

Actually this is incorrect. Jurors are supposed to try the facts, AND, the law. Why? Because if the law is unjust, then it should not be upheld. You should research something called jury nullification. Here is a good place to start-- http://www.fija.org/

Jurors actually have rights. If you are on a jury you need to know your rights. I suggest you read this:
http://www.fija.org/

And this is one of the points I made earlier: there is another way to effectively change the law, other than simply defiance of it, and that is through jury nullification.

Fully Informed Jury Association

It *IS* legally within the power of a jury to refuse to convict, even if the defendant has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have violated the law. I know this sounds strange, but go to that website, and read not just their guide for jurors but the legal history of this principle. It is relatively unknown today because it undermines the power that judges and prosecutors have over people, and they have acted to suppress it, over a long period of time. But the fact is that the jury has the legal authority to judge the law itself, not just people accused of violating it.

Juries are also supposed to try the law itself too. Although this is rarely done today, the right of jury nullification is a long standing tradition.

Fully Informed Jury Association:
http://fija.org/

That aside, technically (despite what you will hear to the contrary from judges and prosecutors) it is the jury's job to judge the law as well as guilt:

Fully Informed Jury Association

I am not a lawyer either, but given information at the above link, and the clear history of our legal system, I believe it is improper for a judge to instruct a jury to find one way or another. As someone else pointed out above: if that is proper, what is the point of having a jury in the first place?

Busy now so I won't bother posting links.

Key quote from www.fija.org link:

At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford. The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

I agree with most of what you said, except for the blanket statement quoted here:

Judges make decisions of law, juries make decisions of fact.

Although you won't get a judge to admit it (they aren't allowed to) the jury has the right to try both the law and the facts of the case. Go to the Fully Informed Jury Assoc. web site for a better explanation and proper legal citations, etc.

While I agree with your point that there are situations where recursive application of the proposed jury review would be ridiculous, there is a good point here. Judges should not be above review (and they aren't, just the process takes too long) and in many cases a jury is the proper instrument of review. You don't want to rely on an appeals court as they (if I understand correctly) mostly only determine if the proper procedures were followed. The concept of a jury of peers was supposed to prevent overreaching judges and laws.
 

Unfortunately, even in the situations where our jury system is used, it has become perverted over the years. Judges will tell you that the jury is only to decide the facts of the case, and not determine whether the law really should apply to the situation presented, but it is the jurors right to do just that. Some would say that it is the jurors responsibility, as it is a part of the people's checks and balances over the government.
 

Please don't believe just me. IANAL, etc. Instead, go to the Fully Informed Jury Assoc. web site for a better explanation, with proper legal citations etc.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

****

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, put it like this: "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."

John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his 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."

http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm

****

http://current.com/items/90078288_jurors-rights.htm

When I got 'called' I was told that not following the judges orders on how to interpret the law could get a juror held in contempt of court.

Yea, unfortunately some judges try to prevent jury nullification. One of the questions I ask someone running for judgeships is if they support it. I will tell them point blank that I will vote against anyone who opposes the right of citizens to tell politicians a law is bad by using jury nullification, if they don't want citizen jurists judging the merits of laws then I don't want them sitting in judgment of others. If they oppose Fully Informed Juries I oppose them.

Plus there's the whole conscription aspect to be adverse to.

Though I had to go down to the office when summoned for jury duty I was never even questioned. As I said previously I consider jury duty to be one of the most important things citizens can do, and want to serve on a jury myself. There are 4 boxes to be used to defend liberty, soap box, ballot box, jury box, and ammo box. And they should be used in that order. Slashdot is one of my soap boxes. When I use the ballot box I vote, and I do vote, based on the candidates positions on the issues not on what party they are in. Unfortunately I haven't been able to use the jury box, and though I have used the ammo box I haven't in years.

Falcon

The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the photographer.

So good luck to the dipshit user who uploaded them.

I don't know if this is viable in London as I don't live there. But if it's remotely an option, then there are times when jury nullification is called for.

A good explanation of the concept can be found here.

If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.

This is when you think the law is bad, or you otherwise cannot convict them under it by your conscience. It still exists to this day, but simply remains mostly unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In this case, I would have absolutely nullified a potential $2 million fine. Did she do it? Sure. But it's a bad law resulting in excessive fines.

It only takes one juror who knows his or her rights to stop this kind of crap. For more information as your rights at a juror, see the Fully Informed Jury Association.

http://fija.org/

-SKO

The fact that the federal government has ruled that somebody growing weed for personal use in his own residence, because he might impact the insterstate weed market by not buying from a street dealer, should be all you need to know to understand that the Federal government would consider ISPs interstate commerce.

Oh, I agree the feds may try. As you say the feds have gone after people in California for marijuana after the state legalized medical marijuana. Going all the way to the Supreme Court 5 of the 9 justices ruled the feds do have the power. However the other 4 said the feds didn't. What's generally not know is that the district judge in the medical marijuana case Gonzales v Raich barred the jury from being told the state had approved of medical marijuana. In Ed Rosenthal's case "several jurors renounced their verdict and rallied to his cause" after learning the state and city allowed medical marijuana. In that case the judge gave him 1 day in jail. Fact is is some judges do what they can to prevent jury nullification wherein juries tell politicians a law is as well as Fully Informed Juries.

Looking to the federal government is not even that wrong anymore. In this ever more globalized economy, people are wanting ever greater conformity in the laws. Having significant differences between the law in various states can be a real hassle. I mean picture if each state had its own set of regulations on what is legal in a cell phone, such that having your cell phone turned on when you entered the state next to you would be a crime, since your phone does not meet that states regulations.

Therein lies the problem, governments have gotten big and enact a bunch of laws. Laws should only be ones wherein harm to others is caused. Crimes like murder, pollution, rape, robbery. The rest can be handled with civil lawsuits. If there is no victim something shouldn't be illegal. And simply using drugs doesn't cause harm, the over use of drugs may harm the user but that's self inflicted. Legal drugs would end gang violence of the drug trade. Which brings up one group opposed to legalization, gangs. If drugs were legal it'd cut into gang profits if not put gangs out of business. A second group opposed to legalization is the drug warriors and businesses that profit from illegal drugs, all those companies that screen for drugs, provide weapons, and such. A third group is the pharmaceutical companies. They can't patent street drugs.

Falcon

I don't know a good way to avoid being called. You can easily avoid being seated however. My experience is that a little knowledge and willingness to think for yourself will make you persona non grata to any good trial lawyer, because said lawyer understands that most people are swayed more easily by their emotions than by reason, and he or she will be trying to make an emotional case, not a rational one. Your presence on a jury would make that case ineffective. Put a copy of the FIJA handbook in your shirt pocket, and you will not be seated on a petit jury. Period.

They were not, by and large, falsely imprisoned.

If someone is imprisoned because they were convicted of a false, bad, law they are falsely imprisoned.

As some of the USA's Founding Fathers said, paraphrasing, it's better to let 10 guilty go free than to falsely convict 1 innocent. In the California medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich the federal judge wouldn't allow the jurors to know that California law allows medical marijuana. Nor do many judged allow jury nullification, a method by which the Founding Fathers supported as a way for citizens to tell politicians laws were bad. After jurors in Ed Rosenthal's case convicted him then found out "he was growing the stuff for the city of Oakland" they were outraged. Perhaps as the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA, has called for we need another Tea Party.

Falcon

Thank you for pointing that out. Readers who want to know more about Jury Nullification are invited to visit The Fully Informed Jury Association.

I could understand if defense attorneys or judges are barred from instructing the jury that they're allowed to use jury nullification, but I can't see how the practice can be stopped.

It's not just that judges are barred from letting juries know about jury nullification, some make an effort to make sure juries will not use it. As for stopping the practice, that's not hard because most people don't even know jury nullification exists. Sure some slashdotters know about it but some don't and /.ers are rather unusual and know, or think they know, more about rights than the general population. Most people I know have never even heard of it, or know what a Fully Informed Jury, FIJA, is.

If the jury finds that a defendant is not guilty, is there any circumstance under which a judge can set that judgement aside and order that the defendant be found guilty?

That I know of, and I'm not any sort of legal scholar, there's only one way a judge can set aside a jury verdict. They have to declare a mistrial, but that I know of that's only used when a jury can't make a decision.

Falcon

In Sweden, can juries find defendants not guilty if they disagree with the law?

By the way, this is a right in the US. No one knows it, though. Fully Informed Jury Association

I think it is my military (Marines) background that triggers it on conversations like this. There are times and places where the law must be broken. It is against the Geneva Convention to use a shotgun in combat. If I am in combat and the only weapon I have available is a shotgun then, yeah, fuck that convention.

The difference between us and them (the government officials) is that you would do that expecting to pay the price for violating the Geneva Conventions. If any government official feels he has a higher duty that necessitates breaking the law, let him do so openly and prepared to do the time for the crime. Otherwise they're just garden-variety cowards with no principles whatsoever and still pose a threat to the concept of rule of law.

There are times when violating a law is a requirement for a variety of reasons. Civil Rights leaders accomplished a great deal by encouraging people to disobey the laws that they felt were unjust.

As anyone familiar with Thoreau or Ghandi would know, breaking the law openly and expecting that you will be arrested and prosecuted is central to the concept of civil disobedience. The Civil Rights leaders had this kind of courage, which is why their message could not be denied. These men and women were not cowards. They believed in something so deeply that they were willing to pay a severe personal price for it. I see none of this kind of real courage in those who think themselves our masters.

In *my* state you are ENTITLED to drive as fast as you would like if you are an elected representative and are not on time for the assembly. On the other hand, if you are too slow in getting there, they can and will send out the state police to get your ass to the assembly via escort.

Yes, but that's probably what the law actually says, which means they are not breaking the law at all (whether that SHOULD be the case is another question). For that matter, an ambulance with its siren and lights on is allowed to speed and disregard traffic lights (albeit for a much better reason), no law-breaking necessary.

There is a time and place to allow people to violate the law. Some laws are just fucking stupid. I think that in ALL cases of law violation the matter should be judged effectively and without bias while looking to ensure the greater good for the society as a whole.

It seems that very few Americans understand this, but this is what juries are for. A jury's purpose is not merely to determine if the law, as written, was broken. A jury's purpose is also to evaluate the law itself. Jury nullification is all about sending a message which says "yes, he clearly broke the law, but the law is unjust and we refuse to punish the defendant for breaking it". I really apprecite the Fully Informed Jury Association site for this reason.

In a democratic country, whether its illegal or not should also be up for debate.

We have jury nullification to help a bit there, beyond the legislative avenue.

It's interesting that you mention jury nullification. I think these people (the organization men and government types, i.e. the statists) are very much afraid of that practice. It used to be that the judge would explain the option of jury nullification to the jurors. Now, not only does the judge not explain this option, the judge tells them that they have instructions regarding how to derive a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict and that these instructions must be strictly followed. The defense attorney is not allowed to mention jury nullification either. So, what was once a widespread safeguard for our liberties has now been transformed into this perception of a rogue hijacking of the court system. I know that I would refuse to convict a nonviolent drug offender, but that doesn't matter much in the face of millions of potential jurors who say "well gee that IS illegal, so he's guilty!" without a second thought. For this reason I appreciate the efforts of the Fully Informed Jury Association. The reason why I think we're fucked up as a society is that important issues like this don't get the national attention and airtime that petty shit like the meaning of Obama's "you can't put lipstick on a pig" comment receive on a daily basis.

The rest of your post is more about whether the law is equal to morality and is written like we agree on it and have not just debated whether this is the case. So, I don't really see a point in responding to that to be honest with you; it would be a rehashing of a previous discussion. I don't say that out of disrespect but because I think that at this point, we are unlikely to convince each other. I just thought that your mention of jury nullification was interesting.

No,no,no,no, if you think 'only the judge is allowed to interpret the law' then you don't live in a Constitutional lawful state. You don't live in Syria by any chance, do ya? ;-)

It's the jury's prerrogative to ignore the judge's instructions on the interpretation of the law

some links where I check up on my sedicious way of thinking before irresponsibly posting:

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
http://www.fija.org/
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/USvDougherty1972.htm ( US vs Dougherty 1972, Court of Appeals )

"or even show up to defend yourself if you are sued in a Federal court or charged with a crime in the Federal courts..."

no. they then issue a warrant for your arrest and drag you in.

btw, no juries either. just tell THAT to our oh so patriotic citizens --NO JURY DUTY, whoppee. ;)
http://fija.org/

american justice occurs in this order:
1. ballot box;
2. jury box (judge both law and defendant --see link);
3. cartridge box.

" It is your duty to accept what the Judge says about the laws to be applied to the case, whether you agree or disagree with the law."

omg, that is total BS, thanks for linking it thers;s one jury pool rigged venue.

it is your RIGHT to judge both LAW and facts, i.e. to vote your conscience.

wow.

there are three ways to get justice, in this order:
ballot box
jury box
cartridge box.

William Penn (see persecutions section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn

John Peter Zenger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger

FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) http://www.fija.org/ (a must KNOW -then [you really can] do what you like. :)

From a website about jury duty: "It is your duty to accept what the Judge says about the laws to be applied to the case, whether you agree or disagree with the law."

I see your quote from a website, and I raise you: http://fija.org/ The quick take is that the jury gets to judge the law, as well as the defendant.

From a website about jury duty: "It is your duty to accept what the Judge says about the laws to be applied to the case, whether you agree or disagree with the law."

I see your quote from a website, and I raise you: http://fija.org/ The quick take is that the jury gets to judge the law, as well as the defendant.

Actually, it IS the jury's job to decide if a law makes sense http://www.fija.org/

Jury Nullification IS available to Jurors, BUT (sadly) ONLY IN A CRIMINAL CASE.

Nope, Jury nullification, while hot button, certainly exists. It may or may not apply to civil cases or be effective in the current means, but please DO NOT discount it. More linky: Fully Informed Jury Association.

You couldn't be more wrong.

...in a society committed to the rule of law

The U.S. is supposed to be a society committed to justice and the spirit of the law. The quote from U.S. vs Thomas makes it seem like the letter of the law is most important. It isn't. Or at least it shouldn't be.

That's the WHOLE POINT of trial by jury "of your peers". If the letter of the law was the only criteria for judging guilty vs. innocent, then it wouldn't matter at all who's peers sat in the jury box.
My "personal issues" are exactly what makes me a much better juror than some thoughtless Turing machine.

U.S. vs. Thomas is a travesty if you value trial by jury as envisioned by our founding fathers.

Give the FIJA site a thorough reading. It ought to be mandatory grade-school curriculum.

It is called jury nullification and Jury veto.

I am a big proponent of it. unfortunately, talking about it gets my excluded form jury duty.

...Jury Nullification"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://www.fija.org/

See how you feel if you imagine they put your name on such a list.

A few year back or so this teenager was put on a sexual offender registry in, I believe it was Gainsville, FL, something about him "exposing himself indecently" or some such and because the hassazment he went through he eventually killed himself.

The constitution offers the means to make changes; but this is not convenient enough, and so we are faced on all sides with unconstitutional law, and told that it'll all be worked out in court if necessary, and in the meantime, comply or face the music.

Ah but a couple of those methods used in court, Fully Informed Jury and jury nullification, the courts try to prevent. Even though they were used by Founding Fathers of the USA. Jurors are told they can't look up or investigate themself and if they do they can be disqualified from the jury. And judges tell jurors they must just make a ruling on the facts of the case, they're not supposed to decide if a law is unconstitutional nor are they able to follow their conciousness. Personally I've been called for jury duty twice, hoping to get selected as a juror for a drug trial, so I could vote "not guilty" saying drug laws are unconstitutional. However neither tyme was I even called up for questioning.

For those who don't like grand juries, I propose an alternative. Allow private prosecutions of prosecutorial and police misconduct under civil rights legislation (18 USC 241,242,etc). By private prosecution, I mean allowing a private attorney (hired by the aggreived party) to press charges against a state official in the name of the state. This is possible under common law, but infrequently used or impossible today. Why private prosecution? Government officials seem a bit too unwilling to prosecute one another, so someone from outside sometimes needs to be brought in.

Thanks for the info, I thought government officials were immune to prosecution for performing actions as part of their job. If they can be prosecuted then I fully support this. Actually I fully support a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification.

http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=displaytxt&id=3 1

Plug for the Fully Informed Jury Association. That we actually NEED this does not reflect well on our education system.

http://www.fija.org/

The judge informed us that we were to base our decision on the law, the evidence and nothing else. He emphasized that last bit several times. He also explained that we may disagree with the testimony of any witness (finding it incredible or what-have-you), but we cannot disagree with the law.

The judge said that after the jury selection was finalized, he would make all the jurors swear an oath to the effect of basing their decision on the law, the evidence, and nothing else. I got eliminated, so I didn't get to hear the exact wording of this oath.

As I understand, what you say in the deliberation room is protected speech, and if you pronounce a verdict of not-guilty, that is pretty much that. However, the judge made quite an effort to intimidate the jurors into obedience...and there has been at least one case of a person being arrasted and going to court for things he said in the deliberation room (I read about it on the Fully Informed Jury Association website).

Incidentally, from what I have heard, if you mention that you visited this website, you are very likely to be eliminated from jury service. Doesn't that seem kind of...you know...backwards? We don't like fully informed jurors trying our cases?

In my opinion, things are getting very, very scary.

Even the lines We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equalIs limited in that it is refereeing to the line before it

Actually the final version of the Declaration of Independence was itself a compromise. In previous versions Thomas Jefferson had clauses that women and slaves had the same rights, though he owned slaves Jefferson believed slavery was wrong and wanted to abolish it.

Jefferson was a colorful guy.

And a contradictory character. As stated above though he owned slaves he didn't like slavery.

But he did make the distinction that the governments have control over it's citizens thru laws and other powers given to them by the people (being citizens).

Via the use of jury nullification he also said that the ciitzen as embodied in the jury was the final arbitor of the law. If a juror believed a law was wrong it was their duty to find the defendent innocent. However today many judges and prosecutors do what they can to disqualify people who believe in nullification from being on juries.

So the "we hold these truths to be self evident" is referring to the need to separate from a government,

From a government not necessarily the British Crown.

Then followed by the statement about being governed by it's citizens.

Being governed by citizens does not equate with everybody enjoying rights. For instance voting is a right only citizens enjoy.

Something that demonstrates this further is that one of the chief complains listed in the declaration was that the king of england obstructed the ability to naturalize people into the colonies or state.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Again it says nothing on whether others have the same rights as citizens except as it specifically states the right to immigrate, migrate.

Then goes onto talk about organizing meeting for groups of men and being regulated by those men in what is now our legislature. He uses this to claim congress and the senate should govern themselves, make rules to conduct business and then purpose to make those rules law. This quote is about a group of people who need to be citizens of the united states to get the job, making a procedure to get the job done. I'm not sure how this could be construed as meaning anything about non citizens.

This only states that a person has to be a citizen to be a member of congress, get the job, and not have to be one to have rights.

Speaking of jury nullification. I'm a big supporter of it and think it is one of the best tools citizens could have against a rampant government.

I not only strongly support jury nullification but also support the Fully Informed Jury.

Jefferson was a colorful guy.

He was at that, he's my favorite of the Founding Fathers. But the more I find out about his friend James Madison the more I like him too. Other than this and jury nullification I'll have to respectfully disagree with you, er disagree as regards citizenship and rights.

From your link:

You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving!

So all we have left are the easily lead sheep and a couple of people vying to be the better shepherd? How comforting.

Guess if I'm ever called to be on a jury I'll just play dumb and say, "I know nothing about this case and nothing about the laws allegedly broken, but I guess I can help out by serving on the jury. I'll learn as I go. By the way, when is lunch?"

I suspect very strongly that in the case of money, simply having the means to create counterfeit bills will probably land you in a whole heap of trouble.


This is why every American should immediately go visit FIJA and learn the truth about serving on a jury. Hint: you can judge the law as well as the facts, and juries ARE the "last line of defense" against oppressive government / bad laws. See Jury Nullification and/or Peter Zenger for more.

If I'm ever serving on a jury, I can guarantee you that I won't be voting to convict in any "victimless crime" situation, or anything where somebody is being charged with violating some bullshit law. Hung jury or acquittal, here we come.

Stop skipping jury duty? Not only have I gone to every jury summons I have gotten (twice, never chosen, grrr) I know full well about my rights as a juror, which you could have explained better. The jury is the final check in a series of checks and balances. If congress enacts an unjust law, the rpesident signs it and the courts uphold it but twelve random people off the streets think (on average, over the course of many cases) it is unjust, then that law should not stand.

Thanks for bringing it up. Although it is obvious to you and I why it is important, many people don't understand, or even think it is an injustice. They don't know about the history, they don't know about the Star Chamber system of "justice" that juries were designed to protect against, and they have never heard of the . These are all things I mention when I raise the issue.

The part of the law creating a database of sexual offenders is a good marketing tool for PORNO DISTRIBUTERS!!! Just think, they now have a free tool to collect the names and addressess of tens or hundreds of thousand potential customers. Ahh! just think, some creep who sells kiddy pr0n now only needs to consult the database and give out samples of product. A nice way to hurt kids at taxpayer expense!!! That monster in Florida, Cooley was on the state's sex offender website, but what good did that do for nine years old Jessica Lundsford? She was raped and and murdered by being buried alive just the same!!! Rather than creating a sex offender database, it would have been better to keep that monster locked away for life for his previous crime. If this were the case, Jessica would be alive today. But NO, lawmakers prefer to pass unconstitutional, feel-good laws that do more harm than good.

Congress critters and others with power should think about the consequences of passing unconstitutional laws. This law can definity infringe on the right to pursue happiness as this not only ostricises the offender, but it also hurts people in his or her neighborhood as it can severely reduce property values. A sex offender lived near my old house, and the registry might be the reason why I could not sell the place. It also denies those who have served their time the equal protection of the law. Those wrongfully convicted are now legally slandered by their own government with no opportunity for rebuttal. If I was to go around an post signs stating that Bush is a child rapist, I could be sued for lible. However, when the government does this to a wrongfully convicted person, there is no recourse for the person slandered.

Despite what people think, most people accused of sex crimes do not get a fair trial, especially when the alleged victim is a child. Their RIGHT to confront their accuser can be suppressed at the whim of the judge. Also, in many cases, the seating arangement of the alleged victim in relation to others in the court is designed to create jury sympathy for the alleged victim as well as dislike for the alleged criminal. I know this for a fact because I had a roommate in the Nave who was accused of molesting a child. His lawyers told him that he would definitely be going to prison because the evidence against him was "overwhelming." His fate was virtually sealed, and he would have gone to prison except the child had a twinge of conscience and admitted that she lied. It turns out that forensic evidence used to prove rape resulted from the girl's voluntary intercopurse with her 14 years old boyfriend.

If a person does get a fair trial and is convicted of rape, child molesting, etc, there should be only two sentences given. One is life without parole, or death (if guilt is absolutely proven). A person convicted should have ample opportunity to appeal. Many neocons would think that I am a coddler of child molesters, etc. but I am not. I believe that punishment should be appropriate for the crime and that sex offender databases set some very insideous legal precedents. Imagine how easy it would be to have shoplifter forced to register in a shoplifter's database. What about laws that permantly restrict where a shoplifter can live, work or play (much like those convicted of sex crimes even after sentence is served)? What about same type of laws applying to speeders? The slope is indeed slippery.

http://www.fija.org/ Judge the law as well as the facts!!!

http://www.constitutionparty.org/ An alternative to "voting for the lessor of two evils."

http://www.lp.org/ Another alternative to the "lessor of two evils."

I voted for the candidate I like. It should NOT come down to preventing some bozo from getting elected, but rather makeing a choice of a qualified person for office.

Unfortunately I was one of those who voted that way in 2000, instead of voting for who I wanted I specifically voted against Bush. Gore wasn't good but he was less bad than Bush to me. In 2004 I voted for Michael Badnarik, and if I lived in the district he's running for in Texas I'd vote for him again. In a way I think that brings up one of the problems Libertarians have, they should run for more local and state offices to get more visibility.

I believe that there will come a time when the people finally fed up with the repression of local, state, and federal governments, will rise up and claim their freedom.

Some are working on just this, the Free State Project is trying to get enough people to move to New Hampshire to regain freedom and liberty and reduce the size of government.

Fully Informed Jurors Association

Ah, only if more people knew about jury nullification. Unfortunately I've heard of cases where people were kicked off juries because they knew about it, that prosecuters and some judges are disqualifying people if they know about it.

I support the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. Unlike many so called "Libertarians" or "Constitutionalists" who continue to refuse to vote for the candidate of their choice instead voting the "Lessor of two evils," I voted for the candidate I like. It should NOT come down to preventing some bozo from getting elected, but rather makeing a choice of a qualified person for office. For the most part, the only differences between Republicans and Democrats is the people they choose to lie to and the lies that they tell. It is no wonder why so many people stay home on election day.

Look at the lies the Republicans tell or imply:

They believe in "family values." Republicans in general claim to be against gay "marriage." They claim to be for freedom. They also claim to be for the small business. Now for the truth ... Republicans have been supportive in voting for laws that strengthen the smut-spewing movie and music industries at the expense of customers and idependent producers. There have been more homosexuals appointed to high office in the Bush administration than in any other previous administration. They also have been responsible for passing such atrocities as the Patriot Act, and disregard to haneas corpus as well as rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Look at the lies the Democrats tell or imply:

Most claim to be for the working man, yet they continue to vote for legislation that send hardworking Americans' jobs overseas to countries that pay very little for their labor. Democrats promise privacy protections, yet they too, also allow warrantless searches as well as increase the number of rules enforced upon the citizens.

These are only a few lies that are told by the "republicrats." Rather than being a nation ruled by law, the United States has become a nation ruled by decree. Rights of the common man are only respected when it is convenient for the government or multinational corporations. Whether one approves of gay "marriage," universal health care, or many other things promised by the republicrat candidates, they will get the same thing when voting for a "republicrat." This is more taxes, more regulations, lower quality of government, more rights being converted to privileges, and less freedom.

It is probably too late to change the system by voting for Constitution Party or Libertarian Party candidates due to the fact that major corporations control the inner (and secret) workings of electronic voting machines. These machines are now used in a majority of districts. However, it does not hurt to stage a protest next election by voting for candidates of both the Libertarian or Constitution parties whenever they run for office. These candidates may not have the perfect solutions to problems, but we already know what happens when we vote for Democrats, Republicans, or the "lessor of two evils."

I believe that there will come a time when the people finally fed up with the repression of local, state, and federal governments, will rise up and claim their freedom. I believe that this will begin when people start by building their own nation or worldwide network. Then there is a free press (and armed citizens), the governments fear the people. Unfortunately there are now attacks on the free press that has sprung up via the Internet and the attack on out RIGHT to keep guns has been non-stop through recent administrations. We no longer just need a new Presidient, Congress, or Supreme Court, we need a new government (or rather an old one). No where on Earth is there a such a thing as a free nation, and this is a reason why people must fight to regain freedom.

http://www.lp.prg/ Libertarian Party website

http://www.constitutionparty.org/ Constitution Party website

http://www.fija.org/ Fully Informed Jurors Association website (Yes, we have the power to judge the law as well as the facts - judges hate this)

The only way voting would mean anything to me is if we could vote to have no government at all. As long as there is someone in charge making laws over us it violates our natural rights and makes us slaves, as beautifully said by Lysander Spooner.

Agreed! That's one reason I support FIJA, Fully Informed Jury, as well as Jury Rights & Jury Nullification.

The Police States of Amerika has long ago ceased to be the land of the free. In just about each one of the police states, we are told what we can and cannot do with our own property. We have to ask permission from some government agency in order to improve or build onto our own homes. The right to drive our cars have been reduced to a "privilege." The right to own weapons is now decided at the whim of governments, and so on. The government even is alowed to decide to take your property and give it to a corporation or someone else if it deems that someone else is a better owner. The police are allowed to engage in wrongful searches with virtual impunity. When it comes to fines, whatever a government or police agent says is what the courts believe nor matter who may be a witness (unless it is another cop or government agent giving contradictory testemony). Even freedom of speech and freedom to write code is determined by the largeness of one's pockets. If someone does not like the code you release, all they have to do is claim patent infringment or make a claim under DCMA. It will cost YOU money to even make simple motions in your defense. This is the state of what was once the United States of America.

As for the indecency on Television, I HATE it. However, there are better ways of dealing with indecency such as Jerry Springer and others - other than violating their Constitutional rights. It can be done by not giving copyright to indecent material. By denying copyright, everyone would have the legal right to copy, modify, sell, and redistribute indecent material. If material can be had for free in high quality reproduction with no legal risk, then why would people pay for it. Rather than fine studios and networks for indecency, it would be better to remove their copyright privileges for a certain series for a certain number of episodes.

The Founding Fathers instituted provisions for copyright and patents in the Constitution for encouraging the production of USEFUL works. What good purpose does obscene material serve other than lining the pockets of those who make it? The simple answer is NONE! So, if a work is not useful to society, then why should its creator have monopoly privileges? I do not see any reason why the creator should.

I believe many child molesters, serial murderers, and general rapists have their obsessions fed and amplified by pornographic and violent content. Something can and should be done about it. Rather than stifle freedom, it would be better to remove the motivation (money) for producing indecent material. Unfortunately, the Democratic-Republican rulers of the P.S.A. would rather pass even more laws that infringe on our Constitutional rights. It is not just those from one party: it is those from BOTH parties!!! This is the main reason why I vote for candidates from the Constitution Party. I encourage people to reaserch the alternative political parties and quit voting for candidates in the bought and paid for mainstream political parties (Democratic and Republican parties). Our freedom is the casualty of voting mainstream political parties.

I just hope that the people who live in what is now the Police States of Amerika decide to wake up and have another "Tea Party." Short of that, I recommend that everyone who lives within the confines of the P.S.A. visit http://www.fija.org/ . That website explains the power that a single juror has. It is the power to vote a defendant INNOCENT REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE OR JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS. If a person is known to have violated an unconstitutional or morally wrong law, then jurors should vote NOT GUILTY despite instructions from a judge. It only takes ONE JUROR to vote not guilty in order to deny the system power. If a jury does not unanimously agree to convict a defendant, then the defendant must be retried or released. I used my power to prevent the conviction of an old man who had an "illegal" gun for self defense.
We who live in the P.S.A. have the power and means to regain freedom, if only we would excercise the power we have left.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!

During the last special election to replace an outgoing congressman, a person from a party not affiliated with the mainstream republican/democratic party ran. Jim Gilchrist of the California affiliate of the Constitution Party won the most votes on election day. However, it was the absentee ballots that caused him to lose the election. Whether that was because the election was directly rigged by the corporate government alliance or whether it was due to the lack of information reaching the absentee voters we will never know. However, the alternative parties such as the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and many others have been gaining ground. Many people who would otherwise stay home on election day are beginning to see that there are now choices in politics. As people stop voting for the perpetual bullshit of the so called main parties, it looks like these parties are looking for even more innovative ways to stay in power. If one of those ways involve manipulating votes, so be it. The day will likely come when people see that even their votes no longer count, they may very well be forced to take extreme measures to make sure they are heard.

One news story from a couple of years ago that has been severely underreported is Marvin Heemeyer's punishment of the rulers in the town of Granby, Colorado. This man converted a bulldozier into an improvized tank. He used this tank to demolish the buildings of those who he felt wronged him. However, he did not cause any injury or deaths to anyone besides himself. Whether he was in fact wronged or not, I will never know. What I do know is that it is extremely difficult to get a redress of grievances from any local, state, or Federal government.

Now that it looks like one of the only two legal weapons that can be used by the common man might be usurped by the corrupt government-corporate alliance. Even when reporting this corruption, a whistleblower is punished. I guess that freedom of speech is yet another right that is being usurped by government. The last power that the people have is when they get a chance to sit on a jury. I know that if I ever get to sit on a jury and I see a judge shushing the defendent or witness, I will vote NOT GUILTY. If the person is accused of violating an unconstitutional law, I again will vote NOT GUILTY. I encourage people to visit http://www.fija.org/ to learn about their rights and powers as jurors.

One of our Founding Fathers once stated that reasonable men are sometimes forced to do unreasonable things. Once the rule of law is usurped from a country such as the P.S.A., anarchy is the result. In the P.S.A. we have been living under anarchy. Anarchy is the lack of law. The P.S.A. is hardly ruled by laws anymore but rather by the decree of men in power. This type of government is called a democracy while a government that is ruled by laws that apply to everyone is called a republic. One day, there may be a general uprising of the people to restore the rule of law. If that day comes, it will mean hard times for years. Governments as powerful as the ones in the P.S.A. do not return their wrongfully gained power easily. I am afraid that if this uprising happens, many, many on both sides will lose their lives. Like the Civil War, there will be family members fighting on opposite sides. Hopefully, if and when that day comes, freedom and the rule of law will be restored.

http://www.fija.org/

Since you are uninformed, become informed. It is the jury's right (and duty) to judge both the law and the evidence.

I read this pdf on jury nullification a while back. IIRC it covers things like why judges ignore the potential of jury nullification. It thought it was an interesting read at the time. It covers what jury nullification is, the basis for it, and why the legal system ignores it as much as possible.

Rather than support the ACLU, the people would be much better off in supporting any organization which seeks to throw BOT the Democrats AND Republicans out of office. 99% of Congress (both House and Senate) need to be voted out as well as the President. The same thing also needs to happens to just about all state and most local governments. For decades we have been electing both Democrats and Republicans to office only to watch our taxes go higher and higher, be subjected to more and more rules and regulations, and watch our voices get weaker and weaker. I for one am tired of the endless crap being spewed out by the Democrats and Republicans. Isn't it time yet for alternative parties such as those listed below?

Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/
Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/
Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/


With the Democrats and Republicans in office, more and more people have quit registering to vote because they believe that it does not matter which one of these candidates get into office (People are going to be screwed each way). This is one reason I blog this message because I want people to spread the word that we actually do have a choice. I believe that throwing out the Republican-Democrats is a better way to obtain justice than what Marvin Heemeyer did in Granby, Colorado (although I do not frown on his efforts to punish local officials). Another way people can have influence in doing away with the oppressive governments in the P.S.A. (Police States of Amerika) is by excercising their powers to judge the law as well as the facts when serving on a jury. People should look at the Fully Informed Jurors Association . In the P.S.A. we will only gain ou freedom by TAKING IT BACK from those who have usurped the rightful power of citizens.