Originally Posted By officerminnie read my post: "And yes, I did read your links and I believe they were all written by constitutionalists." Man, you are so wrapped up in your self you don't even bother to read what I posted!
Originally Posted By officerminnie And on top of that you have insult me. Go back to WE where you belong.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, you did. I did gloss over that statement. I'm not wrapped up in myself. These were not written by constitutionalists. They were from several different sources. Go look it up yourself. I really don't know what you mean by "constitutionalists" except perhaps you expect people to engage their rights. Be that as it may, it's easy to label people when you don't agree with them. But wikipedia, fox news, an a university among a couple of others all pretty much say the same things. As well as Justice Scalia. I guess everyone who does not agree with you is a wacky "constitutionalist." So, what about that freedom of speech thing? Where's your stand on that? I say throw it in the trash, as well. Why not? You're willing to throw out one right, why not another?
Originally Posted By jonvn "And on top of that you have insult me. " I'm not insulting you. You seem to think it is perfectly fine to ignore your morals when you go into a jury box. Isn't that what you are saying? Aside from that you decided to label me as some sort of whack and say I'd be thrown in jail for contempt. that was nice. "Go back to WE where you belong." I see. So you can't really do much besides mutter at me and tell me to go away. Well, that changes my opinion right there. You're absolutely right. I'm going to throw all my personal beliefs aside, and just go along with whatever the government decides to do when they want to throw some random schmoe in jail for whatever reason they dream up. That's what true democracy is all about.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs as to what this is about: Juries originally were introduced into England to protect the individual from the tyranny of government. The first case in which juries nullified a law was that of William Penn and William Mead in England in 1670 The jurors refused to convict the two Quaker activists charged with unlawful assembly. The judge refused to accept a verdict other than guilty, and ordered the jurors to resume their deliberations without food or drink. When the jurors persisted in their refusal to convict, the court fined them and committed them to prison until the fines were paid. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas ordered the jurors released, holding that they could not be punished for their verdict. Jury nullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his journal. This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited criticism of the King or his appointed officers. The attacks became sufficient to bring Zenger to trial. He clearly was guilty of breaking the law, which held that true statements could be libelous. However Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, addressed himself to the jury, arguing that the court's law was outmoded. Hamilton contended that falsehood was the principal thing that makes a libel. It took the jury only a few minutes to nullify the law and declare Zenger not guilty. Ever since, the truth has been a defense in libel cases. Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated: "Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter." In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." Likewise, the U. S. Supreme Court in Duncan v Louisiana implicitly endorsed the policies behind nullification when it stated: "If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it." In recent years, jury nullification has played a role in the trials of Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC for drug use, Oliver North for his role in the Iran-Contra Affair, and Bernhard Goetz for his assault in a New York City subway. In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo highlighted the difference between justice and law. The jury's responsibility is to deliver justice, not to uphold the law. Judges in Maryland and Indiana are required by law to inform the jury of its right to nullification. Article 23 of the Maryland Bill of Rights states: "In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the judge of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." Nullification applies just as much in other states, including Pennsylvania. Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states in Section 6: "Trial by jury shall be as heretofore (emphasis mine), and the right thereof remain inviolate." Section 25 states: "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate." Taken together, these two sections mean that juries shall have the powers that they had "Heretofore." i. e. when the Constitution was adopted. Judges usually do not inform the jury of this right. So, please, don't tell me what is or is not illegal or wrong or what a jury is about. If you work in a court, you might try and find out why we have juries and what their job actually is, whether the judge tells them or not.
Originally Posted By Tinkeroon Geez, Alex, I bet you never thought you'd open up such a can of worms with this thread... Gotta agree with officerminnie and Ursula though. I'm not gonna argue about it...I've seen where that got them, but I agree with them 100%. The jury system isn't where you get to decide the morality of a law and vote that way. The law is spelled out very clear. How you feel about it needs to be addressed with the attornies and judge prior to being chosen for a jury. I don't believe you would ever be chosen to sit and decide. And it's unlikely that anyone with those beliefs would would make up a jury panel. So maybe it's a moot point. But once you are on a jury you have to convict or not according to "the law" not according to YOUR ideas of whether something should be illegal or not. Prior to sitting on a jury you are told what a case is about and asked whether you feel you could be an impartial juror. If you told them how you feel at that time, I guarantee, you will not sit on that jury.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The jury system isn't where you get to decide the morality of a law and vote that way." Yes, it is. It helped stop prohibition. "And it's unlikely that anyone with those beliefs would would make up a jury panel" I've been on a jury many times. "But once you are on a jury you have to convict or not according to "the law" not according to YOUR ideas of whether something should be illegal or not. " The supreme law of his land is the US Constitution, and that gives us the power and the right to do what I said. "Prior to sitting on a jury you are told what a case is about and asked whether you feel you could be an impartial juror." Impartial can mean many things. I can be perfectly impartial. And vote not guilty. "I guarantee, you will not sit on that jury." Probably not. Because judges want juries to sit, shut up, and do as they are told. That doesn't mean you can't still situate yourself on a jury anyway. So you know what? I'll simply not state that. So, impartially, depending on what the crime was the person was accused of committing, I'll vote my conscience, and if the law they supposedly did was not something I feel should be a crime, I'm not going to vote to convict. To do anything else is fundamentally immoral.
Originally Posted By Ursula BuauuaauauuauauHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Guess what was waiting for me in the mail upon my return home from work? Ahahahahhahahahhahaha!
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer Ursula, I think there might be enough pointers in this thread if you want to try to get out of it. The clerk at the Courthouse was so nice. I had a jury summons back in March. A few days before I was due to report, one of our newer LP'ers, StefiAngel, invited Tinkeroon and me to go to DL with them. I believe it was a Thursday and I was due to report on Monday. I run down to the courthouse and wait my turn. I've already heard this lady deny other prospective jurors a couple of postponements. She informs me that I should have mailed back the form requesting a postponement before the time had elapsed and then asks me for my reason. I flat out tell her that I want to go to DL! She gives me a little smile and approves the request. The irony was that a month later I was the 1st juror called (and selected).
Originally Posted By Ursula I don't want to get out of it. I want to find out what laws jonvn is personally offended by and vote guilty, blindly, without hearing the case.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 if you are asked to be on a jury ,they need to ask beforehand if you are willing to make a judgement based on the law and facts as presented. If you say no,which of course is your right and which you would have to answer being honest,then they need to say thanks and tell that you are free to go home.then no one needs to have hard feelings.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, post 72 is how they want you to behave. You don't have to. Much like people say things to get off of juries, you can say things to stay on. Aside from that, the law is a very large thing. You have not only the right, but the responsibility to do what I am saying. People seem to not understand this, and Ursula does not seem to understand what voting your conscience means. She doesn't want to vote her own, but just against mine. It's very sad to see that people simply can't understand any of this. It's why we are slipping into a government that has little regard for the public. It also explains why the government appears to be doing its best to keep people uninformed, to the point of them insisting on their own lack of power to behave in a moral manner.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 Sorry,I am a little slow today.Are you saying that you would like to be on a jury even if you feel that you would not be able to make a judgement as They would like or are you saying that you would not like to servie. I can only see out of one eye and its harder that normal to type right now.
Originally Posted By jonvn "even if you feel that you would not be able to make a judgement as They would like or are you saying that you would not like to servie." But I would be able to make a judgement. It is your responsiblity, power, and right, to judge the law, how it is applied, as well as the facts of the matter. This is how the public has a check against unjust laws. Again, this is how prohibition stopped. People simply stopped convicting others of breaking the law when everyone considered it an unjust law. Further, this was also used for people who violated the fugitive slave act. I would not vote to convict someone who harbored an escaped slave who was trying to be free. Given what people are saying here, they actually WOULD convict someone because "that's the law." I can't tell you how stomach turning it is to hear these people think they are doing the right thing, and acting superior, when all they have done is thrown away their personal sense of right and wrong. Personally, I don't want to be on a jury again. I've done it many many times. But if I were called up again, which will likely not happen, I would go and do exactly as I stated. That is what the moral thing to do is. And people who don't seem to care about morality should simply be ashamed of themselves. This is not a dictatorship. You as a citizen are put in the jury box to prevent the tyranny of the government. That is what you are there for. Has anyone even given a shred of thought to this? Or are you all just mindless sheep doing what you are told and that's it? Well you don't have to. This is a free society, and that jury box is a way to keep government power in check. But if amorality is what you strive for, then go for it. It just means our country and democracy slides just a little bit further down the drain.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 thanks for the fast answer but I still don't understand why you would want to take part in something that you really don't believe in. If you feel that you are making a statement that enforces such a strongly held belief then God bless and go forth and be heard my online friend.
Originally Posted By jonvn "why you would want to take part in something that you really don't believe in." What don't you think I believe in? I believe in the jury system, and its inherent check against runaway powers of the government. This is why we have juries. I honestly and sincerely can not believe that people would not vote their own conscience when it comes to a law. It's not a statement, it's simply that I refuse to act in what I consider an immoral manner, and if I am put in a position whereby I can prevent someone from going to jail for doing basically no wrong, then I'm not going to mess that up by telling the people who do not want me to exercise what little power I do have as an average citizen that I'm going to do so.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 I think that you don't believe in the system of laws that we all voted on and that govern our lives. That place to change them is the ballot box not the jury box.I am the last person to ask since I have always worked as a goverment employee my whole life. I also see your point and I think the answer that "I was only following orders" was answered after 1945 in Germany.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think that you don't believe in the system of laws that we all voted on and that govern our lives." Oh, but I do. I believe in our system of law. But it's more than just what happens at the ballot box, and more than just what happens in the legislature. People have been led to think that what I'm saying is wrong, it really isn't. This is an actual real power and right you have as a jury member. you just aren't told. There are lots of things you aren't told about the justice system. most people don't have clue one how to fight a traffic ticket, for instance. They just meekly go and pay their fine and get stuck with traffic school or higher insurance rates. We all have rights. We shouldn't be so willing to throw them away.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd It's a moot point anyway. They aren't just going to walk up to jonvn and say, ya he looks good. Throw him on the jury. Potential jury members are questioned about their beliefs. One of the questions will undoubtedly be "do you believe that the laws for drug use are just?" or "do you feel that drug use should be legal." If you answer honestly, then you in all likelyhood would not make it to the jury. If you lie to get onto the jury, then that will be revealed down the road and will have it's own consequences.
