SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jlallen who wrote (3035)6/14/1999 2:40:00 AM
From: Dan B.  Read Replies (1) of 13056
 
So you brought in a notion that has nothing to do with my position or it's implications, and use it as a reason to disagree? I don't get it. Now you don't buy jury nullification because "...if the facts and the law are clear, then something has to give." What gives? In that event, and barring bad law, you ought to get justice, right? Barring bad law, we trust juries to provide that more consistently than any other system we know of. Now let us look to juries to provide justice when following the law doesn't cut it in their eyes. If a law is unjust as applied to a case in the eyes of a jury, the Occams Razor conclusion(the simple, obvious, and probably correct one) is that it is highly likely something most probably ought to give. Let's let them rule in such cases, to our benefit. I'm confident that the Fully Informed Jury Association has good law and reason behind their belief that a jury has the right, even the duty, to judge law as necessary.

Dan B
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News