Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (2977)	6/12/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

You ask why I "...believe the Constitution allows a jury to nullify the facts and apply the law at its whim(its version of injustice)." The answer is that I don't- and speaking emphatically here for all who might too have misinterpreted my post- I said no such thing! Please notice in my reply to Neocons comment the following: "...I feel a major cause of the "casino" effect is that case law, i.e. precedent, is given more weight than the facts of a case at hand- and so judges, hence juries, often rely too much on similar- but different- cases." Think about THAT as it might apply to the OJ jury. Hence when you say "The law must be applied to the facts of the case and the decision rendered." I fully agree. Notice that we both use the phrase "facts of the case..." in a manner indicating our mutual recognition of the importance of those to Justice. I certainly did not imply juries should be emboldened to ignore the facts of a case...quite the contrary in fact. I stand by my original statement as written..."In my opinion juries are supposed to determine justice in the case at hand. The letter of the law is to be secondary to the spirit of the law at all times. Constitutionally speaking(the overriding law),all juries have a duty to ignore the letter of lesser laws whenever an injustice would otherwise result." I hope you understand me better now. I am asking for juries to be emboldened to consider justice and facts at all times- rather than the letter of a law. Yes, our system is imperfect...let us not make it more so by instructing juries to apply the letter of laws rather than the spirit of all laws. Dan B

To: jlallen who wrote (2977)	6/12/1999 3:49:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

jlallen, jury nullification of unjust laws has precedent dating back at least to the early 1700's in the Zenger case. zns.com This was the case that established the truth as a defense. Would you rather the jury just be able to be used as a tool of any oppressive law? Here's some more bits and bytes on this issue from the Fully Informed Jury Association: primenet.com BTW, being laid up with some rather severe injuries at the time of the OJ Simpson trial, and not being a fan of much daytime tv, I watched the trial extensively. I believe the jury brought back the correct verdict based on the evidence presented to it. This is not a commentary on my belief in Mr. Simpsons guilt or not, more a commentary on the stupidity of the prosecution. They may as well have folded it up, let him go and gone home when Darden made that insane, stupid, rookie mistake of asking him to try on the gloves. Yes, the questions raised by the acquittals of racist murderers in the civil rights era are disturbing. But to counter that argument there were many juries in the mid 1800s who refused to convict whites who harbored fugitive slaves. It seems to me that while individual injustices happen, the greater good has been protected by the long held right of juries to 'nullify'. While you are correct that no right to jury nullification seems to exist in the text of the Constitution, neither does a prohibition. Barb