worst court decisions in our history

the casey anthony trial... i heard she's moving to france now

 

while that case certainly is a bad one, it was decided by a jury, not the courts.

 

more federal pressure to eliminate jury nullification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/n...cation-case-against-julian-heicklen.html?_r=3

yes, mr prosecutor, that is by OUR design when we formed this nation.

 

Duane

That sentence portion you made bold is perfectly reasonable, legitimate and logical. If you believe that your comment made it any less reasonable, you're horribly mistaken.

 

maybe i'm not understanding. are you saying that it's perfectly reasonable, legitimate, and logical for the people to judge the law? or are you saying that the prosecutor is right in saying what he said?

 

It may be all those things, but it doesn't have anything to do with jury nullification. My understanding is that jury nullification doesn't allow a person to disregard any law on the grounds of having a moral disagreement with said law. I'm probably speaking from ignorance here, but I'm pretty sure that 9 times out of 10 when someone disregards a law on an "ends justify the means" basis and avoids a guilty verdict in a court of law (or avoids court altogether because of "forward thinking" politicians or lax internal oversight) that person is a government employee.

A prosecutor's job is to get people convicted of crimes. It isn't necessarily to seek justice (though occasionally the two things overlap).

 

dammit, i´ve been trying to think of the source for this for a while now but in australia sometime around the 1990s (from the best recollection i have) there was a ruling by a judge on a rape case that set a precedent and i´m under the impression was the origin of the "no" means "yes" in rape cases. i´m hoping that soeone chimes in here with the details of what i´m talking about

 

I think what Duane is espousing here is Ron Paul's position that jurors should not be limited to ruling on the facts of a case but have the right and responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of the law in question.

What the federal prosecutor in his article suggests is that directing jurors to base their verdict on their view of the constitutionality of the law, and not the facts of the case, may be a prosecutable offense as jury tampering.

Jurors can and do certainly act on their emotions and their personal standards (assuming that they dont lie during jury selection) despite the guidance by the judge that the decision should be based on the facts, but attorneys pleading a case should not be directing jurors to consider the constitutionality of the law.

 

The prosecutor is right in what he said.

I didn't respond to that. My point was that the portion Duane made bold contains no logical fallacy.

Regardless, I don't buy into your jury crap. A civil law system makes a hell-of-a-lot more sense from a function-based view. Us Europeans (who cares about the UK?) will always shake our heads at the US legal system having untrained, unqualified civilians weigh up the strength of evidence and arguments presented against and for the defendant, and derive a conclusion from it; when there are perfectly well-educated and -trained legal experts available to judge the details constructively. Why on earth you would do that (I realize you have "We, the people" syndrome, don't worry) is beyond me.

 

My takeaway is that Duane is more concerned with not convicting people of breaking unjust laws. I think it makes sense. There are a lot of stupid laws out there. How many people are in jail for drug possession? I have yet to see an argument against jury nullification that doesn't amount to ye olden "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. I can imagine situations where nullification would result in injustice just as easily as I can imagine situations where it can result in justice.

I'm not familiar enough with the relevant jury tampering laws to say whether standing in front of a courthouse informing people of their options constitutes jury tampering. Not that familiarity would matter anyway, since I'm unqualified to judge matters of law with my simple little layperson brain. I'm not really willing to trust the prosecutor's opinion on the matter, given the fact that she gets paid to oppose the defendant's position and so would do so even if the defendant was in the right. The prosecutor does admit that jury nullification can lead to just results (and unjust results) and then goes on to claim that the courthouse's plaza isn't a public space. That last claim I find somewhat audacious.

Yes, but what they said has nothing to do with jury nullification.

I disagree. If properly functioning, a jury system can overcome bias problems inherent in placing all your trust in a committee of experts. The "properly functioning" part being key. Really, though, training in the law doesn't make someone right or ethical or more qualified to judge evidence than the average person. History is littered with examples of highly trained people in positions of power making tragically wrong decisions.

Also, wikipedia disagrees with your assessment about the prevalence of jury-based trials in Europe.

 

not buying in to my 'jury crap' is certainly your choice, however, my 'jury crap' is exactly what the framers had in mind based on blackstones commentaries as well as numerous court cases in our earlier years.

 

What the framers had in mind was that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish..." (Article III)

The judiciary, not juries, determines the constitutionality of laws. To advocate that juries base their decision on their own ideological interpretation of whether or not a law is constitutional hardly makes for an impartial jury.

I am not surprised you apparently dont agree with the numerous relevant cases that were decided in the last 100+ years, but only consider those few earlier cases with which you agree.

But I forgot that Ron Paul knows exactly and explicitly what the framers had in mind and to hell with any federal court that says otherwise.

 

this would be because the framers rightly knew that government doesn't always have it's main purpose in mind, which is to protect our rights. They occasionally go out of their way to undermine our rights to increase their own power. what I need you to explain to me is how the first 100 years of our supreme court decisions were wrong and the last 100 years are so right.

 

Article III is clear on the fact that the federal judiciary determines the constitutionality of laws. No where does it give that power to juries.

And, the Sixth Amendment guarantees "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

You tell me how a jury can be impartial if jurors are not only ruling on the facts of the case, but are also directed to impose their personal ideology on the interpretation of the constitutionality of the law in question.

I am not saying the earliest decisions are necessarily wrong, but simply that all decisions by the Court are a matter of interpretation and I disagree with the interpretation of those cases...as did the Supreme Court in later rulings (as early as the 1890s).

Unlike the Ron Paul crowd, I accept the fact that I wont agree with all Court decisions but I wont suggest that I know better than anyone else as to the intent of the framers.

 

Art 3 did NOT give the judiciary sole power over the meaning of the constitution. It would be impossible for them to do that because they did not write the constitution, we the people did. A jury has the power to decide everything about the law, even to the extent of the constitutionality of the law because, again, we wrote the constitution, not the government. to decide that the courts know the constitution better than you is to give up your sole power over the government and the way the country is governed, and tell the government that they now run the show.

 

So you want to "strictly" interpret the framers intent (which you dont know) and you dont want to strictly interpret Art. III, which clearly and unambiguously states that the federal judiciary determines the constitutionality of laws. No surprise.

So evidently, you are not interested in the concept of an impartial jury but prefer that individuals be directed (or encouraged) to take on the role of the legislature, executive, and judicial branches and impose their own ideology.

 

how do we NOT know the framers intent? it was spelled out and explained in dozens of commentaries, town hall meetings, state debates and delegations years before it was ratified? all one needs to do to know the framers intent is read these documents. I'm actually surprised you do NOT know this.

the jury is the supreme impartial body in a trial. you are doing nothing but providing a false characterization to what we have today, which is a jury directed to do nothing more than decide if the facts are correct as presented and do they violate the law as the judge tells it to them. there is no impartiality in that. we might as well create professional jurors that understand forensics better than us common folk who can't read the constitution.

 

The framers were not unanimous on many issues, but you evidently know their intent.

Yet, where the intent of the framers is clear and unambiguous, as in regard to the role of the judiciary and the constitutionality of laws as explicitly stated in Art. III, the Paul crowd does NOT accept it.

All I see is more of the same from you guys.

The "people" know whats best...as long as they agree with your interpretation.

Sorry, dude, I dont buy into the arrogance or the ideology

 

again, all one needs to do is read the debate documents to know their intent. As to leaving the totality of the meaning of the constitution over to one branch of the government that they just created in order to rid themselves of the OTHER tyrannical government, well it simply makes zero sense that they would do this with the severe distrust they had in government.

just so we can make clear your position....

we the people created this nation, this government, it's 3 branches for checks and balances, then turned it all over to one single branch of that government that we just created because we knew we'd be too stupid to figure it out for ourselves and needed 'government' to do it for us?

 

My position is that we have a legislative branch that creates laws and is accountable to the people; we have an executive branch that implements the laws and is accountable to the people and we have a judicial branch that adjudicates matters of law and is above partisan politics (as much as possible) and not subject to the whims of the electorate.

What I dont support is the "people" being directed to nullify laws by ideologues who dont agree with the courts. I dont want a jury declaring that the Civil Rights Act or the Brady Act is unconstitutional in defense of a person on trial for refusing to rent to a black family or a licensed arm dealer knowingly selling guns to a convicted killer (extreme examples to make the point).

If the people dont like the laws, elect representatives to change the laws.