I don’t know, and I got caught in a contradiction. I usually try to be more consistent.
Personally, I would be much more worried that a burglar’s family and/or friends would want to exact revenge on me for killing their relative/friend than that a burglar would hold a grudge against me for having him sent to jail.
Narrowly speaking, this is easy to answer.
Dogs give their owners many services. If we were talking about a Robo-PitBull, which is programmed only to kill (and not wag its tail), the state could ban it (or severely regulate it) without outcry. Similarly for a bear trap.
From the opposite end, cars inflict a lot of pain, but are permitted to exist because of the massive benefits associated with their main functions. Much like dogs.
Extending a bit, I’d say that somebody who effectively trains a dog to attack everybody in sight, should have his dog put down. Here it’s the training (and the result) that’s being banned and not the dog per se.
Though some jurisdictions seek to ban certain breeds such as pit bulls. These bans are controversial.
Those interested in studying dog law (unlike myself admittedly) might consider reading Nolo Press’ Every Dog’s Legal Guide: A Must-Have Book for Your Owner. Bow wow.
I think I see your point, but I was thinking not about robot attackers, but a guard dog per se. They are trained (let’s assume) to attack anyone who trespasses on their territory, although not family members to whom they are carefully socialized. They will, however, attack firefighters, kids who climb the fence to retrieve a lost ball, and burglars.
So let’s pretend that the dogs will be kept in the kennel during the day, and let out to roam the fenced-in Shodan estate at night to protect my priceless collection of celebrity foreskins.
It sounds like it would not be illegal, because the dogs can be presumed to offer some kind of companionship during the day. But are they inherently immoral, in the way a booby trap would be if it were only activated at night?
It sounds to me to be roughly the same situation. If you jump the fence, the dogs will rip you to pieces without listening to any explanations. If you jump the fence, the booby trap will go off and shoot you.
Morally, I don’t see the difference (apart from the dog being a pet and the booby trap not being one).
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t have a problem with the use of lethal force in the defence of property. I think it’s perfectly proper that the chap should be prosecuted for setting a booby-trap. Were I on the jury, however, given the information thus far presented, I’d likely refuse to convict. Remember that while the judge and the lawyers ensure that the law is adhered to, it’s the jury’s job to make sure that justice is done. Remember William Penn.
Amen.
Information on jury nullification. Be an informed juror!!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/nullification.html
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/jury_nullification/jury_nullification.shtml
Be informed that jury nullification is illegal, unethical, and a truly ineffective way of making justice happen. A juror swears an oath to abide by the law. By “nullifying,” or finding someone not guilty or not liable even though the person is, in fact, guilty or liable, the juror intentionally violates said oath to permit someone to avoid penalties for violating a law or for committing a civil wrong. How can a juror – without understanding the broader social or economic or political scene considered by the legislature, approved by the people – decide, in his sole discretion, on an ad hoc basis, what the law ought to be?
Nullification shields the law from review by higher courts, thereby leaving the law on the books longer and making more people subject to it. It ignores the equitable power of the courts to make justice happen, and to make a just result based on a consideration of the whole situation, not just the part deemed fit for the jury to review. And it results in situations where justice assuredly does not happen.
Nullification isn’t freedom, my friends. Nullification is tyranny of the individual. Don’t let anyone else tell you differently.
Knowing dogs, I hope the aforementioned collection is in a secure display case.
Actually, jury nullification is none of those; it’s one of the major bastions of the citizen against abuse by the state and its agents.
I would suggest that people read a lil about jury nullification and make an informed decision. If I had been alive during Prohibition, I’d probably have some connections who could/would get me bootleg liquor. I could not imagine finding a fellow citizen guilty of the same act. When it was legal to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, I could not imagine myself finding someone guilty of violating one of the Jim Crow laws.
The thing that makes me really curious about jury nullification, however, is just how uptight the powers that be tend to get at the very mention of the idea.
Is your opionion of jurors that low, or is your opinion of your legislators that high?
/hijack…agree to disagree.
Of course! It’s in the John Bobbitt wing (it was originally one room, but I tore it down and built an extension), and the display case is right next to the Elizabeth Dole nightgown. You know, the one with the pen marks on the back.
Regards,
Shodan
It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court. Sparf v. United States, 15 S.Ct. 273, 282; 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
“Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court–in the words of the standard oath administered to jurors in the federal courts, to “render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence.” We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court’s instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 617 (1997)
You’re wrong.
Is judicial activism wrong? Or is bias only wrong when it involves a juror?
Lying under oath is wrong, whether done by a judge, juror, or President. Your point?
Just an observation on my part.
From here http://www.fija.org/
What’s to be informed about? Your argument is basically that a juror can lie during voir dire, take an oath to follow the law, and violate said oath, and there’s nothing wrong with that? That’s not unethical, to lie under oath? I see the world differently.
If a jury nullifies because one person on the jury doesn’t like the law, who then has made decisions for society as a whole – we the people, or Bob the idiot? You think the OJ trial was justice in action?
Yes, jury nullification makes me foam at the mouth (although I’m hardly one of the powers that be). It’s just plain stupid – “hey, people, guess what! When you’re a juror, you can lie and cheat the system like a motherfuck! Woooo!”
What possible good does it do, in the face of what Bob the idiot thinks is an unjust law, for Bob the idiot to hang his jury or to get Dave Defendant off? The law stays on the books. More people (none of whom will have the fortuity of having Bob the idiot on their jury) will be subject to the law, and there cannot be systemic change!! Jury nullification, in modern times, is arguably the least effective way to change the world for more people. And it puts great uncertainty into the system, and permits horrid injustice to happen.
Oh, and citing to William Penn – what a great example! Only, um, what government was that under? Oh, right – that was 350 freaking years ago! That was before the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, the merger of law and equity, the discovery rules, the end of gamesmanship, etc. You cannot seriously compare that to modern day life. (P.S. Ditto Zenger, which is actually a better example – but still 300 years ago.)
Modern jury nullification is OJ Simpson. That’s what justice is to you? Thanks, but I’d rather live in my narrow little world where when you take an oath, you follow it. And if you can’t follow that oath, you don’t put yourself on a jury. Call me old-fashioned.
And, no, my opinion of jurors is not low. I think juries have an incredible ability to sort through the legalese and the facts and come to do justice without violating their oaths. I don’t see why that’s so hard to grasp. My opinion of nutjobs who get on a jury to nullify is pretty low. There are plenty of laws I don’t agree with. Does the fact that I disagree with them give me, as an individual, the right to override the decision my community has made? No, it does not. That’s why I said nullification is tyranny of the individual.
I do not think being informed can ever be a bad thing. Right?
Objection! I would not lie during voir dire. I have problems with certain laws and if questioned I would answer freely and honestly.
Forget Bob the idiot for a second. How about we make it Liz the podiatrist. She has a problem finding someone guilty of a victimless crime. If there are many, many Lizs and many many Daves get off, wouldn’t there be pressure to change the law? If the law stays on the books, but has no teeth. . .?
Not my example, and I will not go there.
Nope. I do not know that it was really jury nullification, either. Are you saying that the jury believed he was guilty, but felt our laws against murder were wrong? There were problems with the investigation, and maybe the verdict provided a wake up call that the police have to be careful in the way they do their job.
I’m not American. And your cite is bogus: it only states that those intending to use nullification are subject to the same standard of dismissal as everyone else.
Nullification is a firmly established right in the U.K. The precedent was set in the trial of William Penn long ago.
Sorry. I thought we were discussing the state of jury nullification in America. Here’s the full text of the Sparf decision. Read it. And then if you dismiss it, you’d be wrong again.
Again, it may well be in the UK. I honestly haven’t done any research on it. In America, however, jury nullification, while a power, is not a right.
We can’t know for sure, but ISTM the jury might have thought that Simpson was guilty, but that it was even more important to humble a PD with a reputation (fair or not) for abusiveness and racism, and letting him walk might be an acceptable price.