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.

 

California Court Upholds Slavery

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
In poking around the internetz, I discovered something utterly shocking and horrifying that I had not known previously.

In the state of California, a judge has the legal ability to replace a juror if it is discovered that the juror is voting innocent on his dislike of the law.

Moreover, jury instructions stipulate that a jury must inform the judge if one of the jurors is deciding to vote innocent based on his dislike of the law.

This 2001 Times article details the case:


SAN FRANCISCO–Jurors must follow the law–not their consciences–even when they strongly believe the law will produce an unjust result, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court rejected a centuries-old doctrine called “jury nullification,” which gives jurors the power to follow their convictions rather than the law.

“A nullifying jury is essentially a lawless jury,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for a unanimous court.

Nullification, a doctrine rooted in old English law, has been debated by judges, lawyers and legal scholars for decades. In recent years, advocates of nullification have seen it as a weapon against unpopular tax laws and increasingly harsh criminal sentences.

Monday’s ruling was the first in which the state high court directly confronted the principle. The court held that a judge properly excused a juror who said he could not convict an 18-year-old man of unlawful sex with a minor–the defendant’s 16-year-old former girlfriend.

“Encouraging a jury to nullify a law it finds unjust or to act as the ‘conscience of the community’ by disregarding the court’s instructions may sound lofty,” George wrote, “but such unchecked and unreviewable power can lead to verdicts based upon bigotry and racism.”


I find it hilarious that the judge says nullification might be used on behalf of bigotry and racism considering no case of bigotry or racism has ever been recorded in any instance of a jury nullifying a verdict.

IN FACT – jury nullification of the fugitive slave laws by the North in the years leading up to the Civil War was major factor leading to the secession!

To put it another way, if the CA jury rules has been in place in the period leading up to the Civil War, it is highly unlikely that the North would have nullified the fugitive slave laws.

If the North hadn’t nullified the fugitive slave laws, it is highly unlikely that the South would have seceded.

It is also unlikely that slavery would have ended, since the free states of the North were what gave the slaves a place to run to. Prior to the North nullifying the laws, the slaves couldn’t flee because there was no place to flee to!

The State ALWAYS seeks to retain total power you plebes!

It is EVIL!

STOP SUPPORTING IT

edit on 20-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
They have taken what is just about the last stand for freedom. They dont want us to even protest unfair laws. It wasnt bad enough they keep the jury nullification law as seceret as possible now they wont allow it. it should be POSTED in every courtroom

I for one have just about had enough of watching the country i love on a quickly growing rise to fascism. I just wish i knew how to change it



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


Looks like your power to change it through jury nullification no longer exists, at least in CA.

I was absolutely floored when I read this.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
That was a good article, I like the part where it failed to mention that the court upheld slavery. Quite a plot twist.

~



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I feel safer now.

We are a nation of laws not men - the jury is too dangerous when left to their own devices, they need to be severely limited by the law.

Sometimes we have to give up liberty for freedom. If we aren't willing to sacrifice liberty for security then we deserve neither and will have none, just like Benjamin Jefferson said. Right?

*I think I might start moving my family out to California, where the tyranny of Men has ended and a new gilded age of Laws has clearly begun. Clearly.




top topics
 
3

log in

join