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 (3041)	6/14/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 13056

"Cooking the facts", as in "I did not mean to imply you advocated cooking the facts, but if the facts and the law are clear, then something has to give. That's why I don't buy jury nullification. As an example, I think the jury cooked the facts in the OJ case. The evidence of his guilt was overwhelming yet the jury let a killer walk. JLA " In other words, and going back to your post reply-10092057, I still don't see that you've offered any other reason for how you come to think my argument can be used to justify the OJ verdict or racist acquittals. I'd add that all public officials, from Policemen to Judges to Presidents, and all others in-between, take an oath to uphold the Constitution(i.e. the spirit of the law) above all other laws. This is for our own good. It is terribly important that juries have the authority and duty to rule as per THAT law above all others IMHO. Now I feel it's prudent to ask the following rhetorical question: Do you see something in the Constitution that would add to the casino effect if a jury applied it above other law? You and I agree that nothing in the Constitution allows a jury to "nullify the facts and apply the law at its whim (its version of injustice)," and so far as I can see, nothing in my argument does either. Dan B