Doug Darrell Acquitted Of Marijuana Charges Through Jury Nullification In New Hampshire

I can personally attest that judges and prosecutors are deathly afraid of jury nullification. I've seen a potential juror thrown out of a court room during jury selection so fast it'll make your head spin once it was known that the individual believed in jury nullification.

If a law is unjust and outdated, how can an individual in good conscious convict someone on said law?

This is one of the few powers the people have left in the justice system, which unfortunately is stacked and biased for the wealthy. If you don't have a high-power lawyer, good luck getting any form of "justice" in the US court system.

I've heard it said many times, "public defenders" are nothing more than "public pretenders" that often times appear to make backroom deals with the prosecution. Go to any nice bar/restaurant near a court building after the work day is done. I'll bet you'll see public defenders and prosecutors slapping each other on the back and buying each other drinks.

Racking up convictions is more important than true justice being served these days. Careers are made based on the number of convictions, and the for-profit correctional system thrives on keeping the jails/prisons at or over capacity.

There's something wrong in this country when per capita we have more people in jail than China. Land of the free? Hm...

a reply to: Senators

Because those apples are definitely comparable to today's oranges...

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: gortex

And let's not forget the many cases of jury nullification during the civil rights era when white juries would often let off white men who had murdered blacks.

If you support this type of act it can work both ways. The road to tyranny is often paved with good intentions.

Hmm. Murder vs religious freedom. I can see where that can be confusing. I fail to see the correlation between an out dated system(hey, they slapped their wives around too) to a process that is dealing with an outdated law.

I don't understand what the issue is.

This is showing the system of checks and balances can actually work for justice.

Lets just all hope no one fighting the system gets jurors with your opinion. This sets a presedence. Now everyone after has a new law to follow.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. A question. Does a judge have to take the jury's finding? Does this change from state to state? OK. 2 questions.

a reply to: onequestion

The original reason marijuana was outlawed in the US was because of the threat hemp posed to the cotton industry and it just fomented into many other reasons from there to keep it illegal.

a reply to: Senators

I think he's saying that he's happy people utilized the rules set by the laws of this nation, and did not sentence a man to imprisonment due to an unjust law.

That's how the US is supposed to work, dear. We are the people, the government works for us.

a reply to: intrepid

Ironically enough, doesn't the outlawing of marijuana stem from racism itself targeting black and Hispanic people?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: intrepid

Ironically enough, doesn't the outlawing of marijuana stem from racism itself targeting black and Hispanic people?

I'm Canadian. My path has been different. But I'm open to hear this theory.

a reply to: intrepid

Marijuana Prohibition Was Racist From The Start. Not Much Has Changed.

As the nation's nearly 80-year history of pot prohibition slowly begins to crumble, starting with Colorado's recent implementation of taxed and legalized recreational marijuana, critics of the increasingly popular policy shift are jumping to denounce the move. A number of white pundits and newspaper columnists have been among the most vocal, claiming that marijuana must remain illegal, despite their own prior use of it, because it supposedly makes people dumber.

The columns themselves served as the most persuasive evidence of that point. And while such a correlation between pot use and intelligence has yet to be proven, one must be willing to ignore the racist roots of marijuana prohibition and the manner in which this unjust system of anti-drug enforcement still plays out today to make such a shallow argument in the first place.

In a column for The Fix, Maia Szalavitz reminds us that Harry Anslinger, the father of the war on weed, fully embraced racism as a tool to demonize marijuana. As the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a predecessor to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Anslinger institutionalized his belief that pot's "effect on the degenerate races" made its prohibition a top priority. Here are just a few of his most famous (and most racist) quotes:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
“Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: intrepid

Ironically enough, doesn't the outlawing of marijuana stem from racism itself targeting black and Hispanic people?

The original argument that was presented to the House of Representitives was:

This drug will make white women sleep with black men (1933 I think).

Well, that ship has sailed.

On hearing this The House quickly made it schedule 1 drug.

According to my departed Mother who grew up in Chicago. It's a black persons drug.

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

You ever think about, oh I don't know, maybe changing the law first?

When you advocate for simply ignoring laws, even those you do not like, it never leads to a good ending. You end up with things like the OJ Simpson verdict where people now decide court cases based on their feelings and beliefs rather than anything to do with the law.

80 years isn't a long enough wait?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. A question. Does a judge have to take the jury's finding? Does this change from state to state? OK. 2 questions.

A judge can override a jury's decision. I haven't personally heard of a case where it happened but I know it can happen. I would think it is a state-by-state thing but that I'm not sure of. In this particular case being discussed, since the jury was informed of their rights beforehand, I'd like to assume the judge didn't want to convict the guy either! lol

a reply to: whyamIhere

And Swills point comes into play. Remember the scene from Back to the Future when the kids get out back and the black musicians(one Marvin Berry, Chuck's cousin ) and they were smoking and the white dudes are like, "We aren't messing with no reefer heads." And that movie was in the 80's.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. A question. Does a judge have to take the jury's finding? Does this change from state to state? OK. 2 questions.

A judge can override a jury's decision. I haven't personally heard of a case where it happened but I know it can happen. I would think it is a state-by-state thing but that I'm not sure of. In this particular case being discussed, since the jury was informed of their rights beforehand, I'd like to assume the judge didn't want to convict the guy either! lol

So REALLY in the end it's the PTB's game. There's just a few decent judges out there that see the hypocrisy.

a reply to: intrepid

God I hope so.

If a few decent judges didn't filter through the indoctrination all hope is lost for the human spirit.

It would mean that they REaLLY have their ducks in a row and that would be kinda scary.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: whyamIhere

And Swills point comes into play. Remember the scene from Back to the Future when the kids get out back and the black musicians(one Marvin Berry, Chuck's cousin

) and they were smoking and the white dudes are like, "We aren't messing with no reefer heads." And that movie was in the 80's.

I never thought about that. I think the it's a black persons drug type thinking prevailed in the 40-50's.

You are correct about the Judges. Some States allow Judges to vacate a Jury's verdict.

In some States where they don't have mandatory sentencing. Judges have wide latitude.

a reply to: Senators

Which is why education about the concept of Equal Protection is vital. A Real Jury should have at the very least, the Federal, and State Constitutions memorized. Watch how fast you'll be rejected from that jury selection process if you show any knowledge of them.

Laws must match both of them first. Otherwise, they were unconstitutional to begin with.

a reply to: [post=18384836]Senators[/p

If jurors look into their hearts they may come up with answers that have nothing to do with whether or not a law having been broken is a matter of justice or legality or what is right or wrong. Not all laws are just, not all breaking of laws is detrimental to society. NOTHING AT ALL prevents our system from passing bad laws. There are plenty of innocent people behind bars. Fighting against laws that do not have popular support is kinda what democracy is about! So if a law was passed without popular vote and is against popular "wisdom", must it be followed? What prevents laws being made that make everyone a criminal if they have blue eyes? Sometimes laws, rather than reflecting what society feels is best for all, is a case of Me Knowing What Is Best For You. Currently our Congress is very heavily populated with doctors, lawyers, and many, many, millionaires. Do they reflect society in general? Do they have an elitist attitude from not being "regular Joes"? They live differently than most of us; why wouldn't they think differently than most of us? Laws get passed every day that benefit corporations at the cost of the rights of the average American citizen. We let poisons into out foods and air, we let standards get lowered to increase profits...... QUESTION AUTHORITY!

originally posted by: Senators
a reply to: onequestion

So let me understand this.

You are saying that you are happy that social media can influence a jury to disregard law and make judgments according to popular opinion?

I am happy with the outcome.. All the brainwashing bull they have been spouting to peeps for years can go out of the window.. its time for a little common sense...

purp..