Random, I don’t have a dog in this fight (nor in my bathtub, just in case there’s a law against it), but I am curious. What is it with the asterisk?
Apologies. I know its annoying. Im doing two things at once.
See:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8055846&highlight=keyboard#post8055846
Thanks.
No problem. Coincidentally, there*s even a South African connection.
Shit. Between =empire and Whack-A-Mole, I*m too wired to sleep.
Funny, it seems to me you’ve been blindly sleepwalking all through this.
Yeah. That*s the only way I could make it (even remotely) a challenge.
So when are you going to start intelligently challenging anything, you ignorantly pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass?
And when are you going to stop sounding like a broken record? I have no part in this argument, but this is like reading Dr. Seuss, and not in a good way. Repeating the same insults over and over doesn’t do anything but make you sound unoriginal. If you’re going to feel the need to scorn Random in every post, at least vary it more, for us hapless spectators.
:dubious:
You would think that, Speaker for the Dead. Or should I say Speaker of the pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious asses?
Mochaccino enemas.
SanDi*? Is that you?
Ahem.
Big S, small a, small n, big D, small e, big e, and I finish it off with a star.
SanDeE*
DamMiT!
S’aight.
I fucked it up too since I failed to write ‘big E’.
Random, that wasn’t comparing Aangelica to the Nazis. If anything it compared her to an obedient German citizen living under the Nazis. In reality, it didn’t really make any comparison at all; I was mocking her Law Über Alles philosophy.
(Sorry I’m late. Work; you know, making justice happen and all that. Second round’s on me.)
Random, I am flattered that you think with even a two hour head start I could make sense of this thing; I must be really tired, because I don’t really get what ambushed is saying. I think the argument is that because the Georgia Constitution forbids “retroactive laws,” they also cannot pass new laws that decriminalize certain behavior that previously was criminal. It’s kind of odd, because it’s backwards: generally, legislatures may not pass retroative laws that criminalize behavior that was legal at the time it was undertaken. That’s what the prohibition on ex post facto laws means: you can’t punish someone for something that was legal when they did it.
The problem that ambushed is having, I think, is the same one that the esteemed legislator quoted in the New York Times is having: the meaning of “retroactive” is a term of art, but they’re giving it it’s “dictionary” meaning.
I agree that this smells very much like politician-speak to cover up a big mess.
I’d just like to say that the first time I sat on a jury, we were instructed that we were NOT to consider ANYTHING but the facts, and the law. That seemed reasonable, but then the case didn’t turn out to make me (or most of the other jurors) comfortable with only considering the facts and the law.
This kid carried a box into an apartment for his friend who was selling marijuana to a guy. The kid wasn’t selling the stuff, all he did was carry the box in and set it down. He then left. Now in the state of WA at the time? If you are present when someone is committing a felony…and you don’t either stop it or report it, you are considered to be an accessory to the crime. Then came another law. If someone is armed while committing a felony, there is a mandatory five year sentence if convicted. With no possibility of parole. Which also applies to an accessory to the crime if there is one. And…his friend was armed.
So this kid carried a box into an apartment for his friend, and would get a mandatory five year sentence with no chance of parole if convicted. Now, we on the jury had a problem with this. I mean, sure. The kid knew his friend was committing a felony, and he showed bad judgment in helping his friend by carrying in the box. Still, HE wasn’t the one selling the stuff, and HE wasn’t armed.
So we sent a query to the judge. “How can we convict this kid of committing a felony while armed when A) HE wasn’t armed and B) HE wasn’t even selling the drugs?” And a* judge replied with the letter of the law. If a person is there and they don’t stop the crime or report it? They are an accessory to the crime. An accessory to a crime is considered to be armed if the person actually committing the crime is armed.
So, we convicted the kid. We weren’t happy about it, but that was the law. (Still is, as far as I know.) I later talked about this with an attorney friend of mine, and she said that the whole point of having a jury trial is that we (the jury) are expected to use our own judgment in deciding a defendant’s fate. NOT just the “letter” of the law", but…our own judgment as it applies to the situation. As WELL as the law. None of us ON that jury had ever served on a jury before, and we eventually abided by the instructions that were given to us.
I’ve sat on juries since then, and I now use more common sense than I did that time.
*Unfortunately, that query to the judge DID allow that kid to get off on appeal. The presiding judge was from another county and couldn’t be reached to address our query, so a different judge answered us. Which allowed the kid to get off on appeal.
I say “unfortunately” because the kid was arrested and convicted six months later for selling PCP to grade school kids. Yep, right here in sleepy little Bellingham. So THEN I felt bad because he got off in the first place, but still…I think it is wrong to convict someone for something he wasn’t actually doing, and to say he is armed when he wasn’t armed and wasn’t doing the crime in the first place.
I mention this because perhaps the jury that convicted that boy was in the same situation as that jury I was on. Perhaps they didn’t realize that you ARE supposed to use your common sense when you are deliberating on a case.
You, the twelve members of the jury, had the option to exercise jury nullification. If all twelve of you voted not guilty, there’s nothing anyone can do about it - not to the defendant, not to the verdict, and not to the jurors.
That’s jury nullification. No judge is going tell you that you’re allowed to do that, but I’ve never heard of a jury having to justify a not-guilty verdict, nor of any judge having the ability to overturn one. Juries can vote ‘not guilty’ for any or no reason at all. I like to think of it as the general public having a check on the legal system.
And if what he might do in the future had been part of the reason for convicting him, that would’ve been wrong. Pre-emptive punishment is not how the US works.
Because there is no way to eliminate that power without negative consequences, you are correct that juries have the power to nullify, if you are using “option” as a synonym for “power”.
If you are using that word as a synonym for “right”, you are not correct, at least not in most states. A juror who nullifies is violating his or her oath to follow the law and (in at least one state that I am aware of) can be removed from the jury if the hudge learns that he/she is doing so.
Nullification involves a jury substituting its beliefs or prejudices for that of the demoncratically-elected legislature.
Sometimes there are reasons for laws that may not be obvious. (Trials don*t have a component where the litigants or other interested parties get to offer reasons to the jury why a particular law is necessary. The legislative process does.)
As Ive pointed out before, nullification has been often used for purposes that most would consider evil. If the local venire is made up of people who dont like a particular minority, or civil rights laws designed to protect the minority, nullification gives jurors drawn from that venire the power to vote their prejudices, rather than the law. I have generally cited examples, which you have ignored. I think it is irresponsible of you to tout nullification as a good thing without considering the issues that I*ve raised.