Nullifcation of law

[silencertalk]

Remember that as a jury member, you do not need to simply vote on if the action was illegal or not. You can also vote on if the law is ok.

However, it seems like if the judge or other jury members know you might do this, they will get you tossed. So how does one keep them from knowing you will nullify a valid self-defense shooting trial even if there was some technicality, such as the gun was unregistered? Or what if I wanted to nullify a stupid drug law such as having such and such an amount of pot is 'intent to distribute.' How do I know they did not want to just stock up because they got a good deal -- you know, like when my wife comes back from a wholesale club with a 30 pack of paper towels. The law can say all it wants that she must have wanted to resell those, but I can assure you she just did not want to go to the store every week to buy one roll at a time and at a higher price (still hate drugs and drug users but like the war on drugs even less).

http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/IS ... ation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[ArevaloSOCOM]

I have never been lucky enough to get on a jury.

If it were a drug or gun case.....................

Anyway, I agree with you Robert.

This is my fav part:

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.

[silencertalk]

Prostitution should be legal also. I don't think I would ever convict someone for doing that.

My question is -- when you vote as a jury, do you have to explain your reasoning? Or can you just vote to acquit and not say anything?

[ArevaloSOCOM]

I agree again.

[nauss]

60% of all law enforcement in this country is dedicated to drugs.

The Federal government should legalize drugs and collect the taxes. They already hit you with the taxes on drugs when busted so why not go all the way????

It will never happen because no politician wants to commit political suicide for one and two there would be 50-60% law-offs in police! What would they do if not bust people for drugs?? Federal prisons are packed with drug dealers and drug possesors.

Alcohol and tobacco are FAR worse than any "drug". How many times have you heard of a pot-head taking out a church van on the highway? I've never done ANY drugs nor booze nor tobacco so I am in the minority. I do have eyes and can read so why can't everyone else in this country?

It is not going to change but rather get MUCH worse.

Watch the history channel when "Hooked" comes on. It tells about the different drugs and how they became illegal. Pot was made illegal because the government wanted to find a way to deport Mexicans after the great depression. The common denominator was that almost ALL Mexicans smoked pot. Some got 20 years to life for a single roach! They had a choice of prison or deportation. Funny how the same subjects keep coming up every few decades!

What a farse.

[PPGMD]

The Federal government should legalize drugs and collect the taxes. They already hit you with the taxes on drugs when busted so why not go all the way????

The problem is that many drugs are a gateway to harder drugs as your body builds up an immunity to the drug you started out with. In Amsterdam, it's legal to own and smoke pot there, what they don't tell you is that since pot has been legal, they have had an increasing amount of problems with heroin.

Anyways I agree that many of the vices should be legal, prostitution should not only be legal but be regulated as well, regular drug and STD screening, et al.

I also agree that the purpose of juries have been warped, they were meant to be a voice of common sense, injecting the communities ideals into bland laws. No a days they don't even want you to consider the intent of the laws, or how these laws apply to our most scared document, the Constitution.

I guess I would be the bad juror, the one that votes to acquit based on my personal belief of the laws, or the intent of the lawmakers. Also in most juries the votes are via a secret ballot though it's pretty easy to see how someone votes based on the arguments during deliberation.

[poizzin]

taxes do exsist

In the early 1980's states in a new war on drug started implementing their own taxation programs. 24 States are known to have issued stamps for the collection of tax on marijuana. The laws do not legalize marijuana and tax stamps are rarely found on actual marijuana. Tennessee in 2005 became the latest state to adopt a marijuana tax program.


http://marijuanastamps.com/

[Crosshair]

The Federal government should legalize drugs and collect the taxes. They already hit you with the taxes on drugs when busted so why not go all the way????

The problem is that many drugs are a gateway to harder drugs as your body builds up an immunity to the drug you started out with. In Amsterdam, it's legal to own and smoke pot there, what they don't tell you is that since pot has been legal, they have had an increasing amount of problems with heroin.

Yes and everyone who starts drinking alcohol starts moving to cocaine after awhile, then next thing they are on meth and killing babies. Alcohol is a drug. The whole "Gateway drug" thing is a lie.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/gatewayt.htm

The "heroin problem" in the Netherlands is a lie the anti-drug people love to throw around. The rate of Heroin use in the Netherlands "increased" to a rate that is less than one third that of the US. Pot use is half of that of the US.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

I'm not saying everything that works there would work here, but the Netherlands is not the drug filled nut house some people think it is.

[silencertalk]

I disagree with the gateway argument. You could say that about caffeine if you wanted. Nearly all drug users also drink coffee or smoke tobacco.

[PPGMD]

Well we are going to have to disagree, also those number may be a little old, the last time I checked the numbers the lifetime prevalence numbers were close to 45%, also in the US claiming to use drugs vs actually using drugs is like dragging about having sex, it's considered by some to be a right of passage.

I also have family there, and even they are saying that the drug problems are increasing, there is one park in Amsterdam that has nearly been completely taken over by people so far gone on drugs it's not even funny.

I have also seen people's lives ruined by drugs, starting out with pot, moving on to increasingly harder drugs, until there is no turning back. Some may be able to control, but there are too many that can't.

I think the most effective way to fight the war on drugs is to attack the suppliers and the methods to smuggle the drugs over the border, by tightening our borders we can not only stop illegal immigration, but lower the number of gateways that they can come into the US.

This would not only make it harder for drugs to get in, but it will also start to price the drugs out of their market. Going after the users with anything more then a slap on the wrists, does nothing more then cost tax payers money, go after the suppliers and then the dealers, make it so it's no longer profitable to make or sell drugs.

Do I think that this will totally eliminate the drug problem? No, but it will lower it to the point that it's not so much of a problem. But like the immigration problem you have to go for the whole hog, fence off the border, jail people that cross the border illegally.

[tikkafan]

If a jury can vote it's conscience, what's the point? I mean we might as well have Tribunals.

[renegade]

Remember that as a jury member, you do not need to simply vote on if the action was illegal or not. You can also vote on if the law is ok.

The last two jury pools I was on (not selected), they asked all sorts of questions to make sure jury nullification would not take place. You would have had to lie in order to get on the jury. And these were just misdemeanor trials.

[PPGMD]

If a jury can vote it's conscience, what's the point? I mean we might as well have Tribunals.

We aren't talking about voting it's conscience simply using common sense to determine if the law and consequences fit the crime. A great example is that 17 year old kid that was convicted of statutory rape and given a 10 year sentence for accepting a blow job from a 15 year old girl.

The option that the prosecutor gave him was equally as shitty, pleading guilty and serving 5 years in jail.

Juries should be able to take into account the punishment of the crime, the severity of the crime in relation to the punishment, actions relating or leading up to the crime, and finally the overall legality, and application of the law. Was the law created to put people like that in jail, or is the prosecutor stretching the law to apply to this situation?

[silencertalk]

I think my new policy is to nullify any law that is incorrect, even if I don't like the action that took place.

For example, I hate drug use, but I think I might nullify most victimless drug offenses.

And I think it is wrong for an employer to fire someone just for being a woman, minority, religion, sexual orientation, etc -- but if one was being sued over discrimination I would nullify it if I could (unless there was a specific employment contract). I believe in freedom of association and feel an employer should be able to hire or fire someone for almost any reason, even if the boss asked a female employee for sex and she declined. I am just copying my favorite radio talk show host who said that on the air today.

[rwilke]

Remember that as a jury member, you do not need to simply vote on if the action was illegal or not. You can also vote on if the law is ok.

The last two jury pools I was on (not selected), they asked all sorts of questions to make sure jury nullification would not take place. You would have had to lie in order to get on the jury. And these were just misdemeanor trials.

Do you think they didn't select you because you knew about nullification?

[silencertalk]

This is the kind of nonsense I would like to eliminate:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun20/ ... ed,00.html

Walmart should have been able to say they fired her for any reason. For all I care, they could have admitted to her claim and I would side with them.

[shark31]

I think my new policy is to nullify any law that is incorrect, even if I don't like the action that took place.

For example, I hate drug use, but I think I might nullify most victimless drug offenses.

And I think it is wrong for an employer to fire someone just for being a woman, minority, religion, sexual orientation, etc -- but if one was being sued over discrimination I would nullify it if I could (unless there was a specific employment contract). I believe in freedom of association and feel an employer should be able to hire or fire someone for almost any reason, even if the boss asked a female employee for sex and she declined. I am just copying my favorite radio talk show host who said that on the air today.

Boortz fan?

[silencertalk]

His views seem good to me from what I read.

[Hush]

Boortz , libertarian, I like him, don't get to listen to him enough.

I wonder what he has to say about Ron Paul, it should be good, he has strong libertarian views also.

[renegade]

Remember that as a jury member, you do not need to simply vote on if the action was illegal or not. You can also vote on if the law is ok.

The last two jury pools I was on (not selected), they asked all sorts of questions to make sure jury nullification would not take place. You would have had to lie in order to get on the jury. And these were just misdemeanor trials.

Do you think they didn't select you because you knew about nullification?

No I was excluded for having a functioning brain.

They didn't specifically ask that. They used questions like, "Could you convict a person even if you didn't believe the offense should be illegal?", etc.

[GlockandRoll]

My voir dire exam is next Tues/Wed in Travis County Court... I do not know if it is civil or criminal, but all I can hope for is that I am selected for the Jury as my employer pays for time off served on a jury.

Some of my friends assume that I am way to opinionated to be selected as a juror--- but they have no idea how important this process is to me, and how firmly that I believe that ALL people deserve the right to a fair trial, based on the evidence submitted.

[silencertalk]

They used questions like, "Could you convict a person even if you didn't believe the offense should be illegal?", etc.

I would just answer yes to this. As I could. Probably would not, but I could.