worst court decisions in our history

that is precisely WHY we have jurors, to judge the law and it's applicability or fairness, even constitutionality.

it is not within the powers prescribed to the government to make things so complicated that it feels that the people can no longer be allowed to judge it/them. If you don't like it that the people have that power, that's too bad.
--- merged: Nov 6, 2011 5:29 PM ---

while the OJ verdict was an atrocity, it also goes with the framers belief that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to let a single innocent person be imprisoned. why is that so different now?

 

So, if I understand your theories correctly, you're suggesting that lawyers intentionally obfuscated the law to prevent people from understanding it but then we get mad when people don't understand it?

I don't think you guys understand how the jury system works. The purpose of the jury is not and never has been to judge the validity of laws. The purpose of the jury is to determine whether an individual violated the law and, if someone did, the price that individual should pay to either society (in a criminal matter) or the hurt individual (in a civil matter).

People, all of us, MUST be able to follow the law. When 12 people decide arbitrarily on nothing more than their perception of what is "fair" that a law is invalid, it undermines the ability of people to know what the law is. Is the law what is written? When I am harmed as this person was, will my case come out the same way? Will it come out completely differently? Jury nullification is not legal precedent. It is not an appeals court or supreme court ruling to guide future decisions, claimants, victims, defendants, plaintiffs or lawyers. It is merely twelve people saying "Yeah, that law, upon which this entire case was built, argued and defended, is just not ok with us, and we're coming up with a decision of our own will."

Do those 12 people speak for you? I have not elected them. You didn't elect them. The lawyers in the case didn't select them because they wanted them to overthrow the judiciary or legislative process. They (most likely) have not been trained in the law or to understand the ramifications of their decision. They simply didn't like the result, and so they decided to make a result that they felt would be fair. The information jurors are given about the case and the law is circumscribed out of fairness to both parties.

That's why I don't support jury nullification. Juries are not elected officials, unlike legislatures and trial-court judges. They are also not appointed experts with established, vetted track records like appellate judges. I won't write a treatise here about the importance of having an independent judiciary, because the founders clearly understood that, so if you care you can go read what they wrote on the subject. There are absolutely options for having unfair laws changed, and I absolutely agree there are unfair laws. We have a system which has been working for 200 years which allows unfair laws to be changed in a consistent, transparent process. It doesn't always work the first time or as quickly as we'd like, but I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. And I certainly wouldn't trade it for the capricious whims of jurors.

 

I don't know if our system is working too well when it comes to having unfair laws changed. Sure, systems exist, but that doesn't mean that they're at all responsive or adequate.

 

Would you prefer that any 12 people anywhere in the country can change it for the entire state or the entire country? I don't think that's in any way preferable.

 

That's not what jury nullification does, though, so we're all good.

 

No, it doesn't, but Lindy and Duane both seem to think that a system in which it did would be preferable, so I was continuing in that vein. If you're discussing a different method for changing laws, then I'm happy to discuss that.

 

It wouldn't bother me one bit if juries across the nation decided that they weren't going to convict people for drug possession. This would be technically different than changing the law. I suspect that Lindy or Duane might have this type of thing in mind. I don't think that they're advocating that we rewrite state and/or federal legislation according to the decision of any jury which happens to nullify. I could be wrong, though, so if either of them wants to clarify...

 

this is patently absurd and utterly false. where did you learn history at? walmart?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

 

i find it odd that anyone would be against jury nullification. most of the old writings of the founders specifically say the jury is to judge the facts and the law.

then you have cases like the fugitive slave act where many juries fought what they felt were unjust laws.

 

you're either being deliberately obtuse or intentionally misconstruing what jury nullification is. one case of jury nullification does not remove a law or change the system. get enough of them, then maybe it can. jury nullification by 12 unelected peers is the ultimate in a system of law because it ultimately represents your community, not some vague entity that is deaf and blind to the voices of their constituency.

 

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- This thread is getting a little too personal and there have been a few posts that border on flaming. Please stick to the topic. Remember - "if you can't say anything nice, the back button is your friend". In other words, cut it out. You're all better than this.

 

I went to a solicitor once for advice, and when I asked him to explain, he just repeated himself in a shouty voice, then waved at a boocase saying 'I could look in these books'.
On the other hand. I was end like fostering a little old girl, Lucie. Her owner had left money to a charity to take care of her vet needs. They wanted to refuse her an operation she needed as she was in pain. I asked a local solicitor if he would be so ind as to repreent a little old blind dog pro bonio (dog biscuits). He said he would be glad to, and that I should write the charity explaining he was now her solicitor, and please would they senda copy of their deeds of trust/charity, and a copy of the old ladys will. Lucie got her surgery, and a longer and better life. We went out to the supermarket (she had to stay in the car), and we got the solicitor a bag of fresh ginger bread men by way of a thankyou and a card and photo.
I think you find kind people in all walks of life, and the lazy/indifferent or selfish. Just remember to smile when its a good one, and to say thankyou. They deserve the politeness and encouragement.
Thats not the only time I have been lucky enough to be kindly granted free legal help from solicitors whilst trying to help animals.
I know maybe this is a tad naughty of me to post as its not back to the beginning - but I think its a fair and halk kindly perspective on what seems to have gotten a bit of a runaway horse, so hope I am forgiven and dont cause offence.

 

Frosstbyte,

I would not bother trying to explain too much, people are very opinionated either way. Sometimes, I try to explain certain concepts to laymen and they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the rationale and reasons behind the law. They usually refer to mass-media stereotypes of lawyers and rely on myths. It's very frustrating.

 

the McDonald's coffee case
the cruise control winnebago case
the fact that those people lived/reproduced probably has Darwin spinning like a top in his grave

 

EH,

You go to AFA, so you should be really really effing smart. Wiki the Mcdonald's coffee case.

 

i mean, yeah i get that she's really old and that her legs got crispy, i just don't see how someone that doesn't realize simple things like coffee is hot, survived to be as old as her....

or were you getting at something else besides how hot she is?

 

I explained why the case went the way it did, and why it was not a sham case in another thread a while back. Once you get the full facts, it isn't as ludicrous as it first seems.

 

yes McDonalds burned her really bad and yes i'm glad they got taken to the cleaners for it, but who the hell thinks that hot liquid in a shitty paper cup belongs anywhere but your hands or a cup holder? that's just asking for trouble