Originally Posted By barboy Absurd law #1 in California whereby I absolutely would "vote my conscience" as a juror: A person sits in the drivers seat passed out in a public parking lot with the motor running while having a b.o.c. of .08 or greater and there is no evidence, none, that that person drove while under the influence. Now, If a judge instructs me (as a juror) that I must find the defendant guilty of driving under the influence if I found the defendant to have had .08 or more then I would vote for an acquittal. Why? because maybe the person had the motor running to keep warm in Jan. or cool down in August or drank in the car and passed out without driving 1 inch or 1 second. With no evidence of driving, none, there is no way I would convict regardless of blood alcohol percentages.... law or no law.
Originally Posted By MissCandice Alex, I have been called in for jury duty twice but not picked either time. The last time was in June and from what they told us the defendant didn't think it would go to trial but when he saw us all waiting to be called in he pled guilty or no contest or something where it meant there would be no trial. I was back at work by lunch.
Originally Posted By jonvn Plea bargaining. It's the opposite of jury nullification, whereby the prosecutor avoids allowing a jury to hear the evidence, and forces a conviction on someone. That's ok, though.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Doesn't pass the smell test." All you have to do is tell me if you'd vote for an aquittal or a conviction. It is an example of what I'm talking about. The law I picked is just very black and white in terms of its morality. And your avoiding the issue really isn't giving strength to your argument.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 #98 is an interesting example, though, and is contemporary. (The law that this guy was convicted under has since changed in Georgia, but I'm guessing it's still on the books in other places.) So... just asking... if you were on a jury and a 17 year old is on trial for having consensual oral sex with his 15 year old girlfriend; there's no question they had this sex, and the girl says it was totally consensual; but the law says this is "child molestation," and carries a 10-year mandatory sentence... would you vote to convict and send him away for 10 years?
Originally Posted By disneydad109 re post 98 the way the law is written {and I am not saying it is correct},the young lady was not deemed to have the abilty to give her consent.I am only telling how the law reads to me. This is what is/was done so as to stop child molesters saying "while she was looking for it just as much as me." Maybe they need to take a second look at how this law was written and change it a little. The important change that would seem to be needed would allow for a greater age diffrence to be noted before a arrest is made with the folks commiting these "acts",not just a 15 female / 17 male.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 All that is understood. But the question remains: if you were on the jury in that situation, and even though you understood where the law came from, you thought it didn't really make sense in a 17/15 situation... yet the law read as it did, and was indeed violated... would you vote to convict?
Originally Posted By jonvn "the way the law is written" Which is exactly the point. The law is idiotic. This kid got 10 years for doing something everyone does or tries to do. He should never have even been convicted, let alone sentenced to anything. Anyone with an ounce of sense sitting on that jury should have not voted to convict on anything. But they put people on juries who apparently are brainless empty vessels. Might as well have set of 12 PCs sitting there. I read you're not feeling well. Hope you get better soon.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 I understand all the statements both pro and con but I just am not able to get my mind around that fact that some posters think we can pick and choose which laws will be enforced and which will not be.Thats the only thing that bothers me. Who makes the call each police officer,each DA,each judge , each person. If I think something is OK does that mean you have to live with it? I just don't know how to work around that issue.I may think that to stop for a red light is a waste of my time,can I just drive on as I don't have any problem with that? Thats way I posted that bad laws are changed at the voting booth,I think we all need to read of the same sheet of music.Hope no one calls me hateful names just cause I am thinking about this issue.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I just am not able to get my mind around that fact that some posters think we can pick and choose which laws will be enforced" We get to pick and choose who gets elected President, too. When you have a government that basically goes nuts against the public, and starts prosecuting for bad reasons, such as prohibition, or even many of the current drug laws, this is the only tool the public has against an uncaring and unresponsive government. "I may think that to stop for a red light is a waste of my time,can I just drive on as I don't have any problem with that?" If the majority of people stop convicting others accused of committing this crime, then yes. But we're not talking about laws like that. We're talking about having some discretion and reason. Otherwise, there is simply no point in having a jury. Just have a judge up there deciding. What is the jury for if not to be a check agains runaway government power? That is the entire point of their existence.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 I guess whe can both agree to the differnce with which we view the goverment. I have worked for state,federal,and local goverment my whole life. I never tried to treat anyone unfairly in my actions.Goverment employees are just folks like eveyone else. Lets just talk disney junk and be friends!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Disneydad, I understand what you're saying. There is, IMO, a fine line here. And a slippery slope, arguably, on both sides; towards anarchy on the one hand, and towards unthinking sheep-like convictions based on unjust laws on the other. I do think it's fascinating to put oneself in the position of a juror on that case of the 17 year old with the 15 year old girlfriend. And no one has actually ANSWERED that yet... if you were on that jury, knowing what the law was but thinking it was a silly law, would you vote to convict?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Lets just talk disney junk and be friends! " Of course! You have to realize I tend to write with a sledge hammer. It's actually a constant struggle for me to speak in a manner that does not really tick other people off. I'm just a bit on the overbearing side. "I never tried to treat anyone unfairly in my actions" That is good to hear. That is not always the case, and even if you did treat someone fairly, treating someone fairly in an unfair situation is still not a good thing.
