If society is not his victim, then why is it any business of society whether or not his should be punished? Doesn’t society delegate this authority to the jury in our system?
The point of a criminal proceeding is not determine whther someone should be punished for what they are alleged to have done? Then I am honestly unaware of what the point is. Are you saying defendants who are found guilty are never punished?
I don’t think anyone has given society that right.
As for how I know what God wants – I believe what Jesus taught is the truth.
Having answered you questions, please answer mine: If you forgive them with one breath, why would you want to still condemn them with the next?
[quote[I’m saying that as a juror, under our legal system, my “forgiveness” is irrelevant and your “forgiveness” in advance of even knowing whether they have committed a crime should preclude you from serving on juries in the USA.[/quote]
Well, I would not need to forgive them if they had not commited a crime. You are saying it is wrong to forgive people. I disagree.
I believe in speaking truly. Just ask Jodi.
This I haven’t given much contemplation. I suppose that if the company were unwilling to give freely, I would a party to theft.
I just don’t believe in “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
As Jodi alluded to, isn’t it the duty of a jury to “judge the law as well as the crime.” Oregon, for example, has juries determine the law as well as the facts. States like Oregon are (unfortunately) an exception rather than a rule.
I could not in good conscience convict someone (find facts that indicate their guilt) if they had done nothing that I would consider a crime. I think that is (should be) the purpose of jury trials.
Jodi thinks you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Jodi also is forced to conclude that either DSYOUNG is right and you are simply yanking people’s chains, or you are . . . I tread a fine line here, to avoid delivering an insult in the santified realm of Great Debates . . . ah, not blessed with a surfeit of cognitive ability.
I’m not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or really ARE obtuse; either way, any attempt to reason with you further is an obvious waste of my time.
SHORT:
Boy, I hope I never said this. It is the duty of the jury to decide the facts, not the law. The law is already decided, by the legislature that passed it and the courts that interpret it. Juries find facts, not law.
Really? Are you sure? I think I may have to spend a moment looking this up.
It’s not. Prostitution is a crime. If you personally did not feel it should be a crime, that would not change the fact that it is a crime. If you as a juror were convinced that the defendant had committed the crime of prostitution but refused to convict them on the grounds it should not be a crime, that would be jury nullification. As noted above, a jury does technically have the right to do this (because it frankly cannot be stopped from doing so), it is not a result to be desired.
So, you do not have the power to forgive sins, but you do have the power to punish people for them. How quaint! :rolleyes:
Do you think it is an act of love to send someone to prison?
Well, you seem to be occluded from the truth of the situation.
Small J??? You are saying this comes down to punctuation???
That is what Jesus taught. Who am I to question him?
So you believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, right? Even though Jesus said this was wrong.
Then what is the purpose of forgiveness? So could God forgive you your sins and still send you to hell? That would be OK with you, right?
Christianity is a bad idea? Maybe you are right.
You are only mincing words. When Jesus walked the earth, if you sinned you were stoned or put into prison for your sins. You know that.
You just said Christianity is a bad idea. Please make up your mind.
“‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ … Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” – Jesus of Nazareth
Jury Nullification: While I agree that a jury does have the right (in most cases) to decide what they want, this should only happen in cases where there is an extreme injustice of the law. Think about how jury nullification has been used…as a tool of racists. This is not something that we should take lightly.
Jmullaney: I knew you were going to say this. Please send me your tunic. And…hmmm, your cloak looks nice too. Please send that as well. You pay the postage, K?
I am an atheist, so your arguments are meaningless. I believe that when I die, I’m just dead, that’s it. So, since this life on earth is all I get, I prefer not to be robbed or beaten or killed, since I know that I will not be rewarded in heaven for suffering for Jesus’ sake. I’m sure Jesus was a very nice man, but I don’t like to be robbed or beaten or killed. NOW do you get it?
SHORT, Oregon, like most other jursictions, appears to present questions of fact to the jury and questions of law to the judge – not to the jury.
See, for example, Woolston v. Wells, 687 P.2d 144 (Oregon 1984), where the court held that a defense “presents a pure question of law [and therefore] should not be submitted to the jury.”
Oh damn, I must have started an argument with a lawyer. Actually I was very careful in my wording; That is I copied the Oregon constitution ( http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orconst.html ) section 16 of which states in part
I’m sure you are correct about the interpertation, though. My point was an example of a priciple. Evidentally a bad example, but such is life.
For the record, I got that Jodi alluded to juries judging the laws from some posts back “If I strain, I guess I can see how a person might favor a null verdict in one particular case – if the facts and law were both very, very bad --…” I apologize if this was a misrepresentation of your views Jodi.
Huh. That certainly says what you said it says. Now I’M confused. Be right back.
Back. SHORT, do you know which Article of the Oregon Constitution this is from? If so, I can look up the annotations to it (the cases), but not without that information.
This is pretty lame. I hope that a pissed off meth-abusing biker attacks jmullany, and he doesn’t resist, and gets his stupid little ass kicked.
Back to the OP- did it occur that you could be helping to exonerate an innocent person? Isn’t that noble enuf for ya?
Go sit in the pool, it won’t kill you. An honest bias is not a crime, blowing it off should be. Don’t worry, you will probably never even get to that point anyway- I have been in the jury pool three times in the last few years, and have never even gotten to voir dire.
Hmmm…In case you didn’t know jmullaney, not everyone is Christian, so God has no relevance to some. When they die without punishment for a crime because of people like you, that is it (No religion has been proved right or wrong yet…). It encourages more crime since criminals know they won’t receive punishment.
Some people also actually value order in a society as well. Therefore, since these people seem to be the majority, laws and government were established to keep order. Anarchy would prevail if everyone were like you. Why bother having laws if they aren’t enforced?
Oops, I meant to include that too. It is Art 1, sec 16. This is a bit of a hijack, but what database do you use to reseach state law questions? Several sites I use have USSC caselaw, but all have little or no state caselaw.
Good point Kami. That whole “love of enemy” bit is a hard thing to swallow – and I’m hardly a good person. But were push to come to shove I’d have to do what I could. I couldn’t bear the thought of having sent someone to prison on my conscious. I don’t think such punishment serves anyone.
jmanually you can’t forgive people. You can only not judge them. Only jesus and god have the ability to forgive sins.
Of course not judging them does not mean not judging wether or not they did a paticular thing.
Short, I find that a good starting point for legal research involving cases or statutes is http://www.findlaw.com which has a wealth of resources available. Or, of course, you can try using the various search and find services to locate web pages, using the name of the state and the word ‘statutes’ or ‘cases’.
A juror has the power to decide if someone has committed a crime. A judge, either elected or appointed by an elected executive, has the power to punish a person for said crime. The victim of an action has the power to forgive the perpetrator for that action. Nobody has the power to forgive or to punish someone for a sin. Your inability – nay – your deliberate refusal to see the difference between these two elementary concepts is frightening and disheartening.
Actually I was very careful in my wording; That is I copied the Oregon constitution (