That&s exactly how it&s laid out. When using it for its designed purpose, that is how I get an apostrophe. When used for other purposes, that gives me the usual ASCII &.
Thanks, though.
And I had figured out the cut and paste idea. Although I can&t do it with the keyboard (no CNTRL key), if there is a convenient apostrophe nearby, I can use the mouse to C&P. It is cumbersome, though.
Odd. If you have a numeric keypad, you can also hold down ALT while typing 39 on the keypad. Release and you should have an apostrophe. Although, once again, I have no idea what this keyboard you’re using is, nor how the keys are mapped, or if you even have an ALT key and/or a numeric keypad.
Ah…just saw this. Well, I think that removes the possibility of an ALT key. What the heck is this stone-age equipment you’re working with?
No numeric keyboard or alt key, no.
It’s a PLATO keyset. You can see a picture of it here:
That was my point. We had the power to vote not guilty regardless of the facts AND the law…but we didn’t KNOW that. I think that if even one person on that jury had known we were supposed to be using our common sense as it applied to the situation, we’d have voted the kid “not guilty.”
I agree wholeheartedly. And I think that, as my attorney friend pointed out? That is the WHOLE POINT of having a trial by a jury of your “peers.” But if you end up with a jury of 12 people trying to do their civic duty to the best of their ability, who haven’t got a clue that anyone expects them to actually use their common sense to make a decision and who in fact were instructed NOT to make any judgments as to the “fairness” of the law as it applied to the situation (in this case, it meant 12 people who had never sat on a jury before and were clueless as to what to do if the laws and the situation were at odds as to what WE thought was fair or unfair), you are in big trouble.
I think that THIS was the problem. In this situation, I think that this particular case should never have been brought to trial. I think the defendant’s attorney figured that no jury would convict him under the circumstances and rejected a plea bargain. BECAUSE…I think the attorney knew that the DA had charged the kid beCAUSE he/they were convinced that this kid was bad news and should be off the streets. That they hadn’t come up with anything they could convict him of on his own, but that according to the letter of the law, he was clearly guilty and could be sent away for five years…and they took the chance to get him incarcerated. It was only his dumb luck that he got a jury of clueless first time jurors.
I felt bad later only because I cringed when I thought of how many grade school kids he might have introduced to PCP after he got off on the charge. I still don’t think he should have even been charged, and if I had it to over again, I’d have voted not guilty until they declared a hung jury. Although I don’t think that would have happened. All twelve of us were in agreement that the whole thing was stupid…if one of us had stood up and said "I don’t CARE what they say…I’m not going to vote that the kid A) Sold drugs when he didn’t or B) Was armed when he WASN’T. There just wasn’t anyone certain of enough of what we were supposed to do to DO that.
As for the guy who actually sold the drugs and had the gun? We started with him, and took a ballot right away. All twelve of us voted to convict. It took the next nine hours to figure out what to do with the kid.
I have nothing to add to the discussion at hand, but after looking at the picture I wonder if the “super” button (superscript?) could be used with a comma to make an asterisk. (And thanks for the link to PLATO. A friend told me about using it a long time ago, but I’d forgotten all about it.)
If, as you state in your supposition, it’s legal for a jury to ignore the law, then said jury wouldn’t have been administered such an oath for it to violate, would it?
Because it sounds like you hold the opinion that the jury system is just fine as long as the jury brings back a verdict that the legalists agree with.
PS: Can y’all move the * ’ discussion to GQ, pretty please?
But that doesn’t help someone who is in immediate peril from a bad law, and whose life would be ruined or ended if the jury did what you think juries should do.
I think the connection is obvious: If a lay jury cannot be trusted to come up with a verdict based on the law 100% of the time, and if you think that is important, then we should eliminate the lay jury and either replace it with paid jurists or expand the role of the judge. I think the fact the Founding Fathers used neither solution in their own time is very telling about what they saw to be the role of the jury, hence the third part to my little survey.
Just a quick note. The right to trial by jury, and the notion that jurors are supposed to vote their conscience, is an enumerated right in the US Constitution. No oath administered on swearing in the juror can supersceed that duty. If I think the law is wrong, having been enacted by a tyrannical majority, or more likely a result of aggressive lobbying/corruption on behalf of a minority, or enforced by a petty/racist/power-mad executive, then I feel it is my duty to help my fellow citizen escape this unjust situation. The entire reason for having a trial by jury is to act as this safeguard. Those in power run every other part of the system. The peers of the accused are their only lifeline, the only voice of the common man available in the courtroom.
I’m a big proponent of direct democracy. Ballot initiatives, direct votes, etc. Jury nullification is an extension of the people’s power, which they retain, into the judicial system and I think it is a critical one.
Enjoy,
Steven
Agreed.
Cite for this (for your implication that this extends to disregarding the law?)
I’m with Campion here. The jury has a crucial role in evaluating the facts, and making sure that the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As independant as judges strive to be, they are still part of a system that can get too cozy at times. Judges arguably can be influenced by ambition, or alignment with the political party that elected/nominated them. A jury is a check on this. It is a representative of the people, and for those cases where one of the factual determinations that it must make is whether a certain act was reasonable, it is ideally placed to make that decision. (although for some cases, expert testimony might assist.)
These are all very important tasks that don*t require nullification.
Oh, one vocabulary point: It is an often made mistake, but a jurist is not a jury member. That*s a juror. A jurist is a judge. A prospective juror is a member of a venire.
Designer got back to me. No way to do it without swapping keyboards.
And the process by which they[sup]
[/sup]re chosen is called Savior Faire.
Voir Dire.
whoooosh
You’ve emphasized the wrong part of my post. Shame on me for giving you that opportunity. 
You’re correct, if jury nullification were permitted, there would be no need to administer an oath to jurors. There would be no need even to instruct the jury on the law. One need only instruct the jury that they are free to decide the case based on their personal prejudices. And you, as a litigant or criminal defendant, could never know whether your behavior opens you up to liability or guilt.
No, I haven’t said that, or implied that, likely because I believe that the jury system is just fine as long as the jurors listen to the law, decide the facts, and apply said facts to said law to determine an outcome. What throws a monkey wrench in the works is when a jury fails to take their oath seriously. Mostly, jurors do. Mostly, jurors understand the import of their actions, and behave ethically.
The making of laws belongs to our elected officials. If there’s a law you don’t like, the solution isn’t to permit jury nullification, it’s to change the law. Why?
This is a red herring; as Random’s already pointed out, there are safety valves. (Besides, what’s a “bad law”?) The more important issue is that jury nullification doesn’t only permit us to “save” someone who’s on the wrong side of a “bad law,” it would also permit passions and prejudices to determine whether someone is convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. You can’t suggest a new rule of law by pointing out that it could have some good consequences; you need to address the fact that it can and will have consequences we’d all agree are evil.
Here’s another issue. I think, for example, that inflatable Christmas lawn decorations are an abomination and should be banned. I elect officials who agree with me, and who pass laws banning inflatable Christmas lawn decorations. That’s my right as a citizen: if I can get enough of my fellows on board, goody for me. My law gets passed. You shouldn’t have the ability or the right to undercut that.
There are almost too many logical problems with this argument to address: you’ve conflated jury nullification with all other jury errors; you’ve engaged in the reductio ad absurdum; you’ve assumed your premise, etc. Bottom line, a jury can be trusted to come up with a verdict based on the facts and the law most of the time. I am opposed to telling a jury that they are free to ignore both the facts and the law and do “rough justice,” regardless of their duty. I didn’t elect the jury; I don’t want them making my laws.
Mtgman, I disagree with your post, up to and including the word “Enjoy.” I’d also like a citation for your notion that jury nullification is an “enumerated” power. For the studio audience, “enumerated” means “explicitly spelled out.” So I want to see the words in the Constitution that say, “A jury has the right to ignore the law and vote however they want, no matter what.”
Having said all that, I’m really not interested in discussing jury nullification. There is no “right” to jury nullification (just as there’s no “right” to murder, although one has the same power to commit murder as to nullify), and I don’t think any of you will change my mind. Similarly, since the arguments in favor of jury nullification rely on things I don’t find reliable – as noted, the tyranny of the one over the many, the reductio ad absurdum, the “it’s in the Constitution, man!!!” argument – you’ll not convince me, either.
I’d rather talk about Random’s asterisks, or why various jurisdictions pronounce voir dire differently. 
As a reply to both Campion and Random for the essentially same question of enumerating the “right to ignore the law and vote however they want, no matter what.” I give you the Supreme Court decision, which of course carries the force of Constitutional law, in U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)
I trust this satisfies the question of if it is enumerated in the body of US Constitutional law? No? You want more?
Let’s talk about the intent of the framers of the US Constitution
There have even been cases where judges were charged with an offense for not advising juries of their right to nullify. “In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.”
So, let’s get to legally binding cites, shall we? The Supreme Court, whose opinions are legally as binding as ammendments to the Constitution, had this to say in Williams v. Florida
The “common sense judgement of … laymen” is the key phrase there, along with the implications that the jury is to be a check on governmental agents, ensuring that justice is done in accordance with their own common sense judgement.
Also according to the US Supreme Court, in Thompson v. Utah
So what did a trial by jury mean when the Constitution was adopted? Well, the Zenger case was all over the news right about the time it was adopted. Thomas Jefferson, who could fairly be said to understand what the right to a trial by jury meant at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, had this to say about juries “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.”
Nothing about holding citizens accountable to the leter of the law in there. Just about holding the government, the legislators, executive, and judicial powers, to the principles(not the letter) of the constitution. How else to do that except to rely on their own understanding of the situation and relying on their own judgement, their own conscience?
Enjoy
Steven
And that’s what I get for not double-checking my facts. U.S. vs Moylan was a 4th circuit case, not SC, so it’s only binding on those who live in the 4th circuit. Grr.
Enjoy,
Steven
Mtgman, I’d just like to say thank you for providing me with some clarity as to the purpose of the American jury system. It has always confounded me. Your assertion that it is an attempt to balance the scales and prevent Government oppression somehow makes a whole lot of sense now. I’ve never liked the jury system (or Hollywood’s version at least), but your posts have provided some insight into the real reason for their existence.