Slashdot Mirror

We have 17 year olds, here in Australia, who can kill people, and get 2.5-3 years for it, in a youth training centre. The police do their job. The lawyers do theirs. Every other part of the system works; except the judges.

If your judges aren't doing their job, or you don't like how they're doing it either change the laws or fire the judges.

You could also use jury jullification against laws you think are bad. I was called up to show for jury duty twice and both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to serve on a jury where I could use jury nullification, such as a drug possession or trafficking case.

Unlike most people, I don't have such a big issue with lawyers; because I say to any judge who reads this, that I know where the fault with the system really is. It isn't with them, judges. It's with you.

What are you doing to change the system? If nothing you're part of the problem.

Falcon

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

But you cannot base your verdict on what you think about case law. All you are allowed to base a verdict on is the information presented in the courtroom.

BS! At least in the USA not only is it the duty of the jury to decide guilt or innocence but it's also the juror's duty to question the law itself. The USA's Founding Fathers thought jury nullification was one of a juror's greatest duties.

Falcon

The people of the jury don't (or shouldn't) know anything about you, so probably have no "agenda".

Then you apparently have never served on a jury before. Plenty of jury members have their own agendas and many of them believe that their sole job is to convict people.

I'm glad I know different people. Most of the people I know how they stand with regards to laws and trials believe in jury nullification. Myself, I was called for jury duty twice but didn't serve on a jury either tyme. I was hoping I'd be picked for a drug trial so I could use jury nullification.

Falcon

the Jury is supposed to be a passive box that just absorbs whatever information the lawyers wish to provide.

No, the worst part is though jurors are supposed to be the final arbiters of the law juries are often instructed to decide guilt or innocence of the law. An easy way to be dismissed from a jury is to say you believe in jury nullification.

Falcon

I was on a month long trial last summer

Some people have all the fun. Though I've been called to show up for jury duty twice neither tyme was I even questioned. I'm a firm believer in jury nullification and wanted to serve on the jury for a drug trial to say how bad drug laws are.

Falcon

I think perhaps you missed my point. I am not saying that abuses don't happen

Perhaps you missed my point, abuses do happen. And if the government gets the power to deny anonymity then it will abuse that power.

There's an old saying about boxes and the order they are to be used in. If you oppose a regime that doesn't respect the voice box, the answer isn't whispering, it's moving to the next box.

Yes, I've said it myself. The first box is the soap box, speech, therefore the right to anonymous speech. Would you want your boss to be able to fire you because you exercised political speech he or she disagreed with? Would you want Brownshirts to monitor demonstrations and protests and take down names? I've also talked about the second box, the jury box and jury nullification. For the third box, ballot box, I support the Libertarian Party. Lastly I support the Right to Bare Arms.

Falcon

If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution.

Unfortunately, unfortunate because people are apathetic, I agree. If enough people demanded it they could have better representation. The problem here is not everyone agrees with what's better.

People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be.

I was called for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to sit on a jury where I could use jury nullification to say a law was bad, such as the drug laws. Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.

Falcon

You're right I did. And I don't know why. I was called twice for jury duty and was hoping I'd be picked to serve on the jury for a drug trial or something along the lines of a victimless crime. I wanted to use jury nullification to protest a bad law.

That's probably why you weren't picked... Not only did you actually want to serve, but you also wanted to make a point! Lawyers can smell that, you know...

No, I wasn't even called for questioning. All I did was show up and wait for my name to be called out. Actually as for whether lawyers would want me sitting on a jury, defense lawyers would want me, it's prosecutors who wouldn't. That's because I would vote innocent when I thought a law was bad and shouldn't exist. It's what's called Jury Nullification and was supported by Thomas Jefferson. In Notes on Virginia in 1782 he said "...it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact." Another quote of his was "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."

This is two thirds correct. Juries also have the responsibility to decide laws, it's called Jury Nullification. Ultimately it's the jury that has the ultimate power. If a juror believes a law is bad or wrong it's the juror's duty to nullify the law.

Actually if you get called for jury duty but you don't want to be picked to serve on a jury then during questioning all you have to say is you believe in jury nullification. That' basically an automatic disqualification. Though it's part of the founding of the USA most judges and prosecutors try to avoid those who know about it, because it reduces their power. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, said "The Jury has the right to judge both the law and the fact in controversy."

About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.

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.

We aren't told the basic truths such as the REAL power of the jury which is to determine if a law itself is bad and get rid of it.

All too true. And the thing is is judges and prosecutors screen juries to get rid of those who believe in Jury Nullification.

When has any defendant ever had any say so or oversite in the picking of a jury? Answer: NEVER. Think about that. That's why America is so corrupt, its why everyone pleads out, its why you have the right to a jury trial in name only.

I don't know where you are but in most places in the US both the prosecution and the defense can have potential jurors removed from the jury during jury selection. The judge too can remove them, and many will if the person knows about Jury Nullification.

This is an instance, in my opinion, where jury nullification (http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07 JuryNullification.html ) would apply. The law in this case is harmful to the public because it would have kept the information hidden.

The concern for the US Supreme Court is to set precident such that long-term justice can be maintained. It is not so that a given case will have a just outcome (this is a dual task for the district judge and the jury).

The job of a judge isn't to promote a just outcome by any means. If you believe this is so and ever have to appear for jury duty there's a quick way to be dismissed from serving on a jury. When being questioned say that you not only believe in Jury Nullification but also believe in a Fully Informed Jury.

Our mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.

Onced sued by a major company, you only really have two choices: bankruptcy by your lawyer or theirs. The only hope normal people have anymore is defending themselves and jury nullification.

One thing that would help a lot would be for more people to be aware of Jury Nullification. While the laws would still exist, unjust laws would be ignored.

There are some good links on this subject at:

• http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/z enger/nullification.html
• http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/Jury Nullification.html
• http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07J uryNullification.html
• http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm
• http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/04/0412.ht ml

As the saying goes There are four boxes to be used in defending our freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use them in that order.

And this is exactly why it's time for a revolution. Bloodless preferably, but if necessary then blood will be spilt.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
THomas Jefferson, 1787

Bloodless revolution would be good, but unfortunately those with the power won't give it up peacefully

I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always fought against or 2: we revolt and put in place an actual democratic government, by the people, for the people etc. We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.

On being "evil", it's part of the history of the US unfortunately and the US hasn't always fought against it. As for your second point I'm not sure how far you want to go but I'm almost ready to say the citizens should be the ones to vote on passing most bills or laws. But more than that I'm a strong proponent or supporter of Jury Nullification

"No. You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be. That's what the law is for. It's a form of unvigilante unjustice that's just as bogus as vigilante justice, and is what seperates civilisation from anarchy."

You ignore one of the chief reasons why the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is important.

You might want to read these links:

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/punis hment.html
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/punis hment.html#death
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/verdi cts.html#partialverdicts
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/ geweb/PUBLICEX.htm
http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07J uryNullification.html

Just from a quick google session.

If they pass a law making breathing without a permit illegal, are you going to think the same way?

"You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be."

I do in many way agree with this though. The government should not leave any laws on the books that are not enforced fairly, regularly, and evenly across the board. I say this because people will decide for themselves and I think it tends to reduce their respect for all law and get them in the habit of choosing for themselves in all cases, even for laws which really should be there. (I hope you can get my meaning from that.)

all the best,

drew

What we need is for everyone to be aware of Jury Nullification. The job of a jury is not limited to determining the facts. The real job is to ensure justice is done. Another big issue of John's...he was kicked off a jury because of it.

The Bush-Cheney White House. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

That may be true. However, I can't think of any administration in the past 100 years that wasn't an equally "wretched hive of scum and villainy". Anyone who thinks there is ultimately any difference at all between the GOP and the Dems has been fooled. The focus of both parties is to remove rights from ordinary citizens.

What we need is for everyone to be aware of Jury Nullification. The job of a jury is not limited to determining the facts. The real job is to ensure justice is done. This is especially needed to combat the War on Drugs. All we need is one person on each jury who will refuse to convict for drug offences and "Prohibition II" would be over. The same tactic can be used to fight other thefts of rights from the States and the People.

If this outrages you, well, it should. Best way to express this is by contributing to any anti-spyware defenese funds that get organized.

That's one way. Another is to rediscover our right of Jury Nullification.

People will quit filing bullshit lawsuits when juries stop handing them victories.

LK

I suggest you look up some information about contributory and vicarious infringement, and how they're applied. Because printing a list can indeed be an illegal act, even in free countries.

Then the law is wrong. Too bad more people don't understand the concept that government has no intrinsic power, other than that which is granted to it by "the people." If the majority of "the people" decide they want things done a different way, then laws are irrelevant... The people can take away the law-making / law-enforcement power they granted the government.

For that matter, it's a shame that more people (in the USA at least) don't understand the principle of Jury Nullification. "We the people" do have the power to nullify bad laws, and it doesn't take an armed revolution to do it.

Check out this site about jury nullification. The real questions the jury should be answering are: "does the law make sense", not "is it legal or not". The job of deciding whether it is legal or not has already been decided by the prosecution and the judge before they picked a jury.
--

http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07J uryNullification.html>

Maybe this looks like a job for:
Jury Nullification

In order for this to happen, however, the jurors need to some how be informed of this constitutional right. Which might not be easy, but it is certainly possible.

I strongly encourage anyone reading this to read the essay linked above and then go to the FIJA page to find out more.

Linkified for the lazy

Jury Nullification
Jury Nullification
Jury Nullification
Jury Nullification
Jury Nullification:History, questions and answers about nullification, links
Don't believe what the judge told you, as far as I can tell.

• Explanation of Jury Nullification from the Mendocino Eagle