It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Denver man charged with seven felonies for handing out ‘jury nullification’ fliers outside court

page: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree with about 99.9% of what you are saying...

My issue with jury nullification though is it opens the door for laws to become meaningless, unenforceable to some and inconsistently applied to others.

As with the civil rights era if a black man kills a white man, the black man will be found guilty and executed. If a white man kills a black man the law is ignored and the white man goes free.

We are a country of over 300 million people and jury nullification allows for over 300+ million differing interpretations of one law.

A person cannot get equal access under the law in those circumstances. They cannot get a trial of their peers when those peers ignore the evidence and testimony and based their "judgment" on their personal feeling of the law, which by the way is NOT on trial.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well...when injustice has been codified as law, im not sure what kind of fair trials are really even available. I think The People are obligated to participate, and that participation should be willingly, in a just system. I also think The People are obligated to disrupt unjust systems.

When you don't have a voice, the only option is to find another way to make some noise. Jury Nullification is one such act of civil disobedience.
edit on 8/10/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There in lies the problem...

You are advocating 300+ million people being able to decide if a law is unjust knowing they aren't going to agree with each other.

It invites chaos and a multi tiered judicial system based on 300+ million opinions.

I guarantee you that the people who support jury nullification will bitch up a storm if they find themselves on the losing end of a jury nullification.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

the cycle is order-disorder-order.

We are moving away from order.

I get what you are saying. It isn't difficult to see how it could go awry. But if we can all agree a law is unjust, do we keep convicting and imprisoning over it? Is that really the answer? Just push meat through the gristmill? Should lady liberty just pile some sausage up on those scales?
edit on 8/10/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree.

Jury nullification is a critical weapon to use against tyranny.

That is exactly why it is available in the system.

The real question that Xcathdra does not understand is ....

Who is supposed to run the country.

And the answer is ....

WE THE PEOPLE.

That is where the power resides and it is where it should and must reside.

P



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There in lies the problem...

You are advocating 300+ million people being able to decide if a law is unjust knowing they aren't going to agree with each other.

It invites chaos and a multi tiered judicial system based on 300+ million opinions.

I guarantee you that the people who support jury nullification will bitch up a storm if they find themselves on the losing end of a jury nullification.



When jury nullification is unavailable well, that just leaves guns............. It's there for a reason. Peaceful and reasonable civil disobedience.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Well, and from that perspective comes the notion of "willingly policed".

Our laws are supposed to be a set of rules that are generally agreed upon. Nothing in the consitution gives government the right to restrict me. From there, we pretty much land in the federalist/antifederalist debate that began as our nation was founded.

But it cannot be argued that a nation of free men can only be policed willingly.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly what criteria is used to determine if a law is unjust?

The law on murder is pretty straight forward. It was straightforward during the civil rights era as well.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

The part you do not understand is We The People do not live in a Democracy but a Constitutional Representative Republic. The people we vote into office represent the people. If your rep is doing something you don't like, then vote for someone else.

However you are going to find people who do support that representative and will support the items he votes in favor of or against.

Jury nullification bypasses the system in such a manner that it creates an unfair imbalance. Our Constitution establishes how our government works, including laws, how they are created, signed into law and dealt with by the judicial system.

To me jury nullification comes across as people who are just to lazy to get involved and vote / let their elected officials know what they are thinking. Jury nullification can not and is not consistent and that in and of itself creates another set of problems.

Nothing in our Constitution allows jury nullification. Ironic people are willing to take the very action they accuse the government of - acting outside the law.

In the state of Missouri the law allowed for the use of deadly force when someone was committing a felony - ANY felony. Tennessee vs Garner was a SCOTUs ruling that defined when deadly force could be used against a felon.

State law is not in sync with federal law.

should we use Federal law or state law? If an officer takes an action that is lawful under state law but a violation of federal law should he be charged?

Jury nullification is a slippery cliff argument.

edit on 10-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

No it leaves the judge being able to give jury instructions that are consistent instead of allowing an individual to use his opinion on the law in question instead of the reason he is there in the first place - to judge the accused.

We have a means to have laws changed / challenged.
We have a means to remove people from office.

All it requires are people to stop being lazy and to get involved.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

and when one of those freemen kill your family because in their opinion they don't like how they dress, act, vote, eat dinner etc?

The Constitution is the document that establishes how the government can act and that those actions must be approved by the consent of the people.

use the system in place.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo


Law enforcement has ZERO power over an attorney. In fact, it's the other way around. I can subpoena ANY officer of law for ANY reason I see fit and COMPEL him or her to appear and testify under oath. Law enforcement somehow making an attorney's career "go down the drain"? Yeah, I don't think so.

....




We attorneys don't have any "power." We litigate. We make arguments. That's it. We do not pull strings or manipulate anything.


Sooo.. Which is it?

Seriously.
edit on 10-8-2015 by Bundy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Prior to the civil war, the law was pretty clear as well. Yet jurors still were notorious for failing to convict in cases pertaining to the Fugitive Slave Law.

Jury Nullification is "using the system". In the civil rights era, jury nullification was not really the issue. The issue is having all white juries trying white defendants for murdering black people in the south. Unless we accept that an all white jury is representative of the defendants "peers".



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Jury nullification bypasses the system in such a manner that it creates an unfair imbalance.


Unfair for whom?

Unfair for the judges? Unfair to the people you elect.

Pick your head up and just look around. You have more people per head in jail than any other country!

You do not have an operational justice system.! It is broken!

It serves big business. It is corrupt as all hell.

Why do you want to do away with the only piece left that can make a difference?

We The People need this avenue to have a chance, a small one at that, to correct a system where justice is now only a word. There is no justice system. The richer you are the more 'justice' you can have.

Your country is not the proud upstanding nation it once was.

P



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The concept of Jury nullification occurred prior to the US even becoming independent. The Constitution says nothing about Jury nullification and over the years English common law was replaced with Criminal and civil law (codified).

The slave trade and the civil rights movement is a prime example of why jury nullification is so dangerous. It allows the individuals in those instances to be exempt from a law designed to protect all.

I don't support an action that allows an individual to ignore the law in such a manner that it does an end run around the Constitution / laws itself. If jury nullification were important it would have been included in the Constitution. rightfully so it wasn't and as we have seen throughout history its never been used in a positive manner.

The purpose / concept of a jury is to weigh all the evidence and deliver a verdict based on that evidence. No where was it designed to sit in judgement of the law instead of the person accused under the law.

Jury nullification can be argued as violating the 6th and 14th amendment. As a matter of fact there was significant debate with the 6thamendment in regards to English common law, with the only standard that was carried over from common law was 12 jurors and the requirement all 12 had to agree on a verdict of guilty.

Jury nullification was never brought over and for good reason.

edit on 11-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Its unfair to an individual who is charged and convicted under a law where others who committed the exact same crime with the same standards walk free because the people on their jury decided they were there to judge the law instead of the person.

As I pointed out above it could be a 6th and 14th amendment violation.

Nice try though in trying to argue for the government or judges where it was very clear in my post I was referring to the individual.

As I said you have no issues with jury nullification unless you are on the receiving end of a fuzzy lollipop. If you are convicted under a law where others have walked based solely on jury nullification you would be throwing a fit about it.

We the people have a Constitution that does not allow for jury nullification. If it did it would have been included in the constitution and it was not. why?

edit on 11-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bundy
a reply to: jaffo


Law enforcement has ZERO power over an attorney. In fact, it's the other way around. I can subpoena ANY officer of law for ANY reason I see fit and COMPEL him or her to appear and testify under oath. Law enforcement somehow making an attorney's career "go down the drain"? Yeah, I don't think so.

....




We attorneys don't have any "power." We litigate. We make arguments. That's it. We do not pull strings or manipulate anything.


Sooo.. Which is it?

Seriously.


Don't be willfully obtuse, please. Having the power to subpoena a law enforcement officer hardly grants me power over the entire legal system or a judge or a jury.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it is codified in the constitution. It is the entire reason that there is a trial by jurys to begin with.

The examples being given by you are actually good examples of 6th amendment violations, as an all white jury trying a white man in a town where there are black and white men available....that is not a jury of ones peers. That is a jury of ones friends. Two different things entirely. The issue with civil rights trials was not jury nullification. It was 6th amendment violations (i.e., "loaded juries"). I'd bet that if Waco loaded the juries down with Cossacks, they'd get some interesting results. Same with loading juries down with the Klan during civil rights. They were complicit in the acts themselves...and had no role as jurors.

"There are five boxes to use in the defense of liberty: the soapbox, the mailbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammunition box. Use them in that order."



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra


We the people have a Constitution that does not allow for jury nullification. If it did it would have been included in the constitution and it was not. why?


It was. The 5th and 6th amendments imply it. You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers, and once you acquit the government cannot pursue charges again. It gives the ultimate power to a jury, and is the only offset against a rogue legislative branch creating unjust laws for the rogue executive branch to enforce.

We The People are the 4th branch of government. Presided over willingly, policed willingly.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If you look at how a jury works and what it is responsible for no where does it say "able to use personal opinion and judge the law instead of the person".

* - Article 3 section 2 says nothing about jury nullification.
* - 6th Amendment says -

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


* - impartiality

The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. At voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.


Jury nullification is in fact a bias as the juror's sole responsibility is to judge the facts presented - not the law itself.


With that said I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. In my opinion a law that is illegal / unconstitutional / unjust can always be challenged in the courts in front of a judge. A judge has the ability to act in those cases, up to and including declaring the law unconstitutional or sending it to the legislature to fix to bring it into compliance. Jury nullification does not in and of itself fix laws they think are illegal / unconstitutional / unjust. It ignores the law in one instance while a second jury could find another person guilty.

How would you argue the following -
Person A and Person B both live in the same state. They both commit the crime of murder. The jury for Person A uses jury nullification. The jury for Person B finds him guilty.

How is that equal protection under the law? How is it not a 6th amendment violation? How is it not a 14th amendment violation (Due Process)?

I also maintain that supporters of jury nullification who find themselves on the losing end will change their tunes and argue the argument I and others have made, claiming their rights were violated as the law was inconsistently applied.

Either way thanks for the lively debate. You raise some very good points that I will look into further to see if it changes my overall view on jury nullification.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join