Juries should be informed of mandatory minimums

Care4all said:
They don't have the option to nullify it or to find the defendent not guilty for the reason that their government is too harsh with the punishment if they are not told what the minimum punishment is....

A nullification does not find the defendent not guilty does it? A nullification means that something is UNJUST...a statement of such, a rebellion against the system.

Care
Click to expand...

If anyone on the jury knew the mandatory minimum, they could. But that's rarely the case. I'd just like to make the knowledge of the sentence more up front, and I think it's stupid for judges to tell the defense that they cannot mention the mandatory minimum or else a mistrial will be called. Also, juries should always be specifically informed of their right to nullify the law.
 
Juries were supposed to be the LAST check on our system. When unjust or just plain stupid laws are passed, we, as representatives of "the people" should have the right to pass judgement on the law. Prosecutors fear the possibility of juries screwing with their win loss records by finding that the law is unjust or stupid and acquitting on that basis. I have thought many times of finding one of my non-lawyer friends to start a group that sits out in front of courts with fliers that inform people of our history of jury nullification and that they have a right to decide HOWEVER they see fit and NO ONE can inquire as to how they reached their decision. I may still do it someday.
 
Care4all said:
They don't have the option to nullify it or to find the defendent not guilty for the reason that their government is too harsh with the punishment if they are not told what the minimum punishment is....

A nullification does not find the defendent not guilty does it? A nullification means that something is UNJUST...a statement of such, a rebellion against the system.

Care
Click to expand...

nullification is just that. it nullifies the application of the law...in that particular instance. Whether it's because they don't agree with the law directly (like legal marijuana or machineguns), they don't agree with the application (life in prison for possession), or they don't agree with the prosecutorial aspect (life with no parole for 3rd offense of stealing a loaf of bread). In order to 'nullify', a not guilty verdict would be rendered in that particular case, nullifying that application of the law in that case only.
 
No, some are promoting jurors (the people) only real check on government tyranny. Trial by jury and the implied right of jury nullification goes back to the Magna Carta. Activism, hell, it was a long settled matter.

The point that went safely over your head, usc, is not that corps are individuals. They are not anymore than a union is an individual. It's that labor organizers enjoy the same rights as those who combine to form a corporation. It's not anti business to oppose laws that make labor organization illegal. Business has nothing to do with it. It's pro individual rights.

An individual has the right to assemble and join with others in action. An individual has the right to refuse a job. Therefore any law that outlaws a strike is tyranny. Statists thrust these laws upon us and then sought to thwart the power of jury nullification to protect the laws.
 
RStringfield said:
No, some are promoting jurors (the people) only real check on government tyranny. Trial by jury and the implied right of jury nullification goes back to the Magna Carta. Activism, hell, it was a long settled matter.

The point that went safely over your head, usc, is not that corps are individuals. They are not anymore than a union is an individual. It's that labor organizers enjoy the same rights as those who combine to form a corporation. It's not anti business to oppose laws that make labor organization illegal. Business has nothing to do with it. It's pro individual rights.

An individual has the right to assemble and join with others in action. An individual has the right to refuse a job. Therefore any law that outlaws a strike is tyranny. Statists thrust these laws upon us and then sought to thwart the power of jury nullification to protect the laws.
Click to expand...
And, once again, the people said "Amen"
 
Maybe if people were to pay more attention in their high school civics classes, and pay more attention to laws passed by their local, state and federal governments, the courts would not need to advise them of their authority as jurors.
 
Good Luck said:
Maybe if people were to pay more attention in their high school civics classes, and pay more attention to laws passed by their local, state and federal governments, the courts would not need to advise them of their authority as jurors.
Click to expand...

1. High school civics classes don't mention nullification.

2. Are you really trying to suggest that someone is just irresponsible if they don't keep up with all the fucking laws ever passed in their local area and the various sentences assigned to each? Because it sounds like you are just being stupid.

3. How does it fucking hurt? Why are you being so fucking pedantic?
 
Good Luck said:
Maybe if people were to pay more attention in their high school civics classes, and pay more attention to laws passed by their local, state and federal governments, the courts would not need to advise them of their authority as jurors.
Click to expand...

gl

hmm, my 'civics' class did not mention jury nullification or jury recommendations, but that was in 1963

seems to me that the government does not want citizens to explore this portion of law

on another tentacle, meet mr. pointy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top