It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Your right once again JPZ, I do fear jury nullification on every single case brought before every court. I mean why bother holding court then right? I mean why bother having a trial at all? Just say everyone is always innocent no matter how much evidence there is that they actually did something.
He's holding up a sign that says JURY INFO. He's standing amidst a cluster of courthouses. He's been arrested 11 times for the SAME offense.
Seriously, if you're not a dogcatcher would you take a pamphlet that said 'Dogcatcher Info'?
As for Jury tampering? Well one thing can be said, without the 'JURY INFO' sign this would all be a non-incident.
The FIJA mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant.
How can it be considered acceptable for a single juror to nullify a jury, based solely on his opinion on the validity of the law, yet a majority of voters establish a "law", only to have it overturned by a Judge?
This seems, to me, to be the epitome of a double standard.
If jurors are permitted to consider their personal opinions of the validity of a law, how can our justice system be allowed to continue, at all? How can that system deliver fair and equal justice? One jury, due to their agreement with a law, convicts a defendant. The next day, a different jury is nullified, potentially freeing a defendant for a violation of the same law.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A single juror does not nullify the law.
A jury is made up of either 7 members, or if a judge decides, 9 members, with the exception of a death inquest held by a Coroners Court. When a jury is held in this instance the number is usually 5.
...they simply reject the validity of that legislation for that particular case.
Since all judges derive their authority from the we the people...
We the people have every right to decide when an act of legislation has gone too far and is in fact abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals.
Oh no. I understand the law is not permanently nullified. However, if even one juror chooses to use his "vote" to go against the others', ignoring the facts of the case, due to his opposition of the law in question, that law has, in effect, been nullified in that particular case. Because, in many cases, a mistrial results in the dismissal of charges, by the prosecution. (Hope that long, run-on sentence makes a little sense)
This is where I have a problem with the whole concept. It completely destroys the idea of "Equal Justice Under Law". Two trials, taking place in courtrooms across the hall from one another, with identical cases and similar facts, have the potential of resulting in one defendant being imprisoned and the other being freed. However, if the juries are limited to determining the veracity of the testimony, the findings "should" be the same.
However, if the juries are limited to determining the veracity of the testimony, the findings "should" be the same.
True, with lower court judges who hold elected positions. However, those appointed to the bench, by the nasty, partisan process, seem to ignore that mandate, in many cases.
Hence, my comparison to the Prop 8 issue, in CA. If "We the People" can make judgement on the abrogation and derogation of the rights of individuals, can they not, also, make the judgement on the lack of? e.g., Establishing a ban on the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.
FIJA's approach is to destroy the fabric of justice in this country. Jury Nullification, Hung Juries, so that no one has to be responsible for their actions. It's the purpose of FIJA to destroy the Judicial branch of this country from the inside.
They want to see murderer's and rapists and thieves go free. They want jurors to ignore the evidence in front of them, ignore the testimony of witnesses, ignore the facts and just either use Jury Nullification or come back as a hung jury.
That's why they hang out giving out pamphlets at court houses instead of doing a mass mailing, they want to influence potential jurors to their cause at the site. If they can get a few jurors to vote against the law instead of by the evidence presented, they will achieve their goal and potentially a mass murderer can go free, or the baby killer, or the serial rapist, or the crack dealer.
This also has the added benefit of allowing a new case to be used as an argument like our friend JPZ does. He can say "But look, this jury in such and such a place ended in jury nullification and that accused serial killer was able to go free! Sure, 45 more people died, but natural law prevailed and his natural right to be a predator won out!"
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
Good GOD I hope you aren't selected for ANY jury!
That kind of bias is sickening to my core. Having a fair trial and a trial by impartial jury is one of the cornerstones of this great country, and with one post you have proven that you would willingly throw that impartiality away just to get back at the cops.
I hope you are never on any jury! People like you make me sick, it's people like you that would let a multiple rapist go just because you don't like cops.
Don't even pretend for one minute, Wukky, that you advocate people taking responsibility for their own actions. You advocate big government to regulate the crap out of people, and call that, like all double speakers do, freedom.
Of course, it is a wonder you even bother to engage in double speak at all since you are so willing to blatantly lie. You want to play that game? Let's play that game. Congress and practically every single person running from Congress wants to enslave the American people! Man, the prison unions have got to love you.
Show one single piece of credible evidence to support your contention that FIJA does not use mass mailing to get their information out. Of course, you just follow up that lie with more of the same lies you've been telling in this thread from the beginning.
Now you are linking me with advocating the freedom of serial killers. Your lack of ethics may make you think your a good candidate for Congress, but you only represent everything that is wrong with this country and the political process. Like any coward, you refuse to debate the facts, and instead will willingly libel another member just so you can feel like you are "winning" an argument. Your lack of ethics is deeply disturbing. Accept responsibility for actions? Where in this thread have you accepted responsibility for your actions, Wukky?
Yea, the same can be said about your stance too, you don't advocate people taking responsibility for their own actions, you advocate anarchy. Society without rules is anarchy.
It's because of people like you that I decided not to further my bid to be elected. People like you want this country to fail, they look for weaknesses and try to exploit them for their own nefarious means. It's people like you that make me want to leave this country, you take an issue, exploit it for your means, and twist the truth to fit your own agenda.
You want me to prove a negative? How is that supposed to work?
Why wouldn't you advocate the right of a predator to be a predator? You don't arrest a lion for taking down a gazelle do you? That's natural law.
That has always been your prime avocation in these kinds of threads right? Natural law, the law of the jungle? Anarchy?
A lion will do what a lion will do and so will a serial killer, that's natural law.
No government intervention, only who can kill who faster.
Your argument is that natural law trumps all other laws is it not?
Well, natural law dictates that a predator will in fact be a predator and so it's natural law after all, can't legislate against someone doing something they are predisposed to do right?
I see, so it's your opinion that I shouldn't have 1st Amendment rights because I disagree with the way that this group goes about things?
How very selective of you. I am glad you straightened me out on this so I know that I am not allowed my 1st Amendment rights by decree of JPZ. Any other rights you want to whimsically take from me oh purveyor of natural rights?