Originally Posted By barboy " And "victimless" crimes do have victims, don't kid yourself. (like the drug addict who put a gun to my head to buy drugs with the money and goods he stole from me, for example)." This is lame. You are introducing something above and beyond drug use. Let's see: How about gambling...... "like the gambling addict who put a gun to my head to buy more chips with the money he stole" Are you ready to outlaw gambling now too?
Originally Posted By sherrytodd My interpretation. "It was not the evidence brought forth but the lack of it." There was not enough evidence presented in the trial to convict so they found him innocent, but on some deeper level he really felt that the man was guilty and is now being released to do it again. This is what happened to my husband when he served on a jury for a rape case. There was not enough evidence presented in the trial, so they found the man innocent, but when the trial was over, the prosecutor showed them the evidence that was not allowed to be presented in court and it was pretty obvious that he had done it. My husband came home just sick, because they let loose a man that was a rapest. He was really upset.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer sherrytodd, your husband certainly did not let loose a rapist. The prosecution failed to provide evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that would have resulted in a different verdict. Your DH is to be commended for following the jury instructions and basing a decision on the evidence as it was presented. He made the best decision possible with the information that was available at the time. If there is any placing of fault, it belongs with the prosecution, not your DH.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd I did not mean to imply that my husband did anything wrong. It was just really frusterating and upsetting for him.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<So again how would you interpret it?>> I wouldn't. The original post was unclear. Before getting emotional over a speculative interpretation, I'd let the original poster come back and clarify.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer sherrytodd, I knew what you meant and I understand his feelings of frustration. The criminals have many of the advantages and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It's even worse when the prosecution does a bad job or when there is evidence that cannot be brought forth during the trial. In the 2 cases I was on, the prosecution failed to connect evidence that would have resulted in open and shut cases. I saw the connections but could not base a verdict on evidence that the prosecution did not present, the other jurors understood that as well. I know exactly how your husband felt. My use of the word fault was not to imply a "wrong" but the rather the inability of the prosecution to present the evidence needed for conviction. IMHO your DH came to the only verdict possible for a man of integrity.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 I would rather 100 guilty people go free before we lock up one person who is innocent.
Originally Posted By alexbook And the results of yesterday's service: I spent the day in the jury assembly room, listening to other people's names being called. At about 3, they told those of us who hadn't been called to go home. Once again, I've completed my jury service without actually serving on a jury. Is it my shoes?
Originally Posted By Ursula <<<Are you ready to outlaw gambling now too?>>> Gambling is legal where I am. We have card casinos and Indian reservations, as well as church bingo. If drugs were made legal, then the courts would not be clogged up with drug crimes. Since drugs are illegal, the jerk who robbed me had to pay street prices for his drugs.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The problem is that it is not the jury system's duty to make the law." As far as I'm concerned, I will not put someone in jail for something that I do not consider a crime. I think it is immoral to do such a thing. I don't care what the law is. The law is what we make of it, and I will not be part of ruining someone's life for something that is not something I consider wrong. You are not a sheep. You don't have to just "follow the law." That's the excuse the nazis gave. People complain about stupid laws all the time, but if they actually did what I would do, then the jury system would actually work, and we'd go a long way towards reversing the criminalization of the population and the abuse the DA and the police departments are currently engaging in due to the war on drugs and other similar "crimes." "I've completed my jury service without actually serving on a jury. Is it my shoes?" Luck of the draw.
Originally Posted By Ursula I am not a sheep? Really? Wow, thanks. Oh, so now you are an anarchist and I'm a nazi? So what if I think it is okay to murder people. The next time I am on a jury for a murder case, I will follow your lead and let the murderer go. And yes, Alex, it is your shoes.
Originally Posted By jonvn I didn't say I was an anarchist, and I didn't say you were a nazi. I said it is wrong to convict someone of a crime when I don't think that it should even be a crime in the first place. People should not check their morals at the door when they go and sit on a jury. That's one of the reasons why you are there. It's one of the principles of democracy and one of the ways we can keep our government from persecuting people with unjust laws. It is called jury nullification, and here is a wikipedia article about it: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ury_nullification</a> "what if I think it is okay to murder people." Do you actually think it's ok to murder people?
Originally Posted By beamerdog >>As far as I'm concerned, I will not put someone in jail for something that I do not consider a crime. I think it is immoral to do such a thing. I don't care what the law is. The law is what we make of it, and I will not be part of ruining someone's life for something that is not something I consider wrong.<< It is extremely important that if you serve on another jury that you let the judge or master know that you do not care what the law is. If you feel strongly that a law is unjust, please direct your energy to contacting your legislator to find out ways to change the law. I am sure that you can find a like-minded group of people who would appreciate your support. Jury nullification does not always work. I know that judges in my state can overturn the decision of a jury. And do. All that being said, I do not feel that jury nullification is an effective way of changing the law.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It is extremely important that if you serve on another jury that you let the judge or master know that you do not care what the law is." No, it's not. It's not important that I say anything that would get me taken off a jury where I can effect a person going free if that is what I think is the right thing to do. "If you feel strongly that a law is unjust, please direct your energy to contacting your legislator to find out ways to change the law." That's a utopian view of the world. One of the reasons we have juries is just for this ability to refuse to convict people of laws that are wrong. In the wikipedia article, it said that 60% of all alcohol cases during prohibition were tossed out for this reason, which helped bring about the 21st ammendment, repealing it. "I know that judges in my state can overturn the decision of a jury. And do." They can, I suppose, making the entire reason the jury there a pointless mockery of justice, but that's how the country is going anyway. "I do not feel that jury nullification is an effective way of changing the law." History says otherwise.
Originally Posted By jonvn Aside from whether or not it is an effective way of changing the law, I still under no circumstances would send someone to jail for a "crime" that I feel is not a wrong thing to do. THAT is immoral. Blindly following the law no matter how it hurts someone who is basically doing nothing wrong is, again, what the nazis got the population to engage in. That is tyranny. And if you need to fight tyranny you use every tool at your disposal.
Originally Posted By goodgirl I had the privilege to serve on the Grand Jury. It was all day every Thursday for two months. I had to use vacation time but it was well worth it. The district attorney presents a case. You hear testimony from the police officer(s) and sometimes other witnesses. There might be other evidence to read or view. You then determine what charges should be made. Prior to hearing cases we were educated on domestic violence and drugs. Midway through our term we toured the county jail and I prepared a report on behalf of our group. Grand Jury really opened my eyes to the types of crimes that occur in my area, the menace of meth to our society, the hard work our law enforcement officials do and the work the DA's office does to prepare its cases. I encourage anyone who gets called for Grand Jury to seriously consider participating. You will not regret it.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 dear jonvn, I think that I would not have a problem with taking all that you have spend you life working for.I would guess that you would ,of course,support me as this is something that I think is not wrong.
Originally Posted By officerminnie I could really say alot here, but I am going to refrain so I won't insult a particular poster here. However I will say that the attitude of "I only have to follow the law if I agree that it is a valid law" is just ridiculous. It reminds me of my 15 year old neighbor kid who, along with his buddies, thinks it's okay to smoke dope because the law that makes it a criminal act is "a stupid law". A very mature attitude.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think that I would not have a problem with taking all that you have spend you life working for." So, if you think robbery is fine, then I guess you wouldn't have a problem being robbed. IF that's your morality... "I will say that the attitude of "I only have to follow the law if I agree that it is a valid law" is just ridiculous." It's also what the people who founded this country believed in, and what we have as a right to do in this country. I think it is the absolute height of immorality to send someone to jail for doing something that I don't personally think is wrong. I would like someone to explain how someone in good conscience can do this. And at what point would you not do this? I mean, if the law said "This person must be executed for wearing blue socks," would you just go ahead and vote for their death? That is what I find ridiculous, that people seem to think they're supposed to just be a computer sitting there in the jury box with no sense of decency, morality, or justice, and that the DA and the cops can just go and arrest and prosecute anyone they want with total impunity. That is not how the jury system is supposed to work. You're supposed to bring your brain in the box, and use it in deliberations.
Originally Posted By Ursula jonvn, let me try to explain it to you. It is not illegal to wear blue socks. It is illegal to hire a prostitute. Many people believe prostitution is wrong and immoral. Ergo, it is illegal. Many people don't care if people wear blue socks. Ergo, it is legal to wear blue socks. IF there was such a law on the books that it is illegal to wear blue socks, there will be hundreds of blue sock-wearing citizens to make the law-makers change the laws. In the case of the start of our fair country, we didn't have representation to change the laws that were imposed upon us. We had no choice but to rebel. Now, let's take your "brain-checking" comments to task. Say I'm in a jury. Say a lady is up for murder charges. Her prints are on the gun, there is a taped confession from the police station the night of the murder of her saying she did it. In the trial, we find out that the man she killed was her husband who abused and raped her for years and she just couldn't take it any more. I wouldn't vote guilty. That's me using my brain. Say you are in a jury. The charge is illegal drug selling. You vote not guilty because you think drugs are a victimless crime, even though the prosecution had evidence up the wazoo against the lady up on charges. And, drug selling is illegal. You didn't bother to make your case to your lawmakers and take this charge off the books so you let a crimal go. How is that moral? This lady doesn't care about the laws we have, and breaks drug laws as well as many other laws like stealing and turning right on red when a sign is posted. Thanks, you just let her off.
