hypothectical jury question
if you were on a jury would you convict for:
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
0
-
yes to all, laws are laws, even if they're crap. 0 -
this is a very interesting question and one that i have asked myself before. however, i dont specify the crimes you listed but i ask the general question....if i was a juror and the defendant was charged with a crime that i didnt think should be a crime would i aquit regardless of the evidence and my sworn oath ? my answer is this....do you feel strongly enough about the law that you are willing to aquit, thereby BREAKING the law and risking prison for a person you dont know and a law you have the legal means to try to change ? i am not sure.
remember, in america we have a process to change laws we dont like. its called voting, ballot measure, referendums and the legislative process. we dont make laws from the judges desk or the jury box. its UN AMERICAN0 -
I would be honor bound, and Constitutionally bound to vote:
No
No
No
Doug0 -
If the person in question was proven to have broken the law in question, I would do my duty.
Part of what's wrong w/this country is people picking and choosing which laws they will observe.
Don't like the law? Change it. Until then, obey it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
so...as a sciopath that advocates murder, It would be fine to aquit a murderer because I think murder is OK?0 -
this countrys problem is that there are too many laws, and more deadbeats getting elected every time you turn around that do nothing but make more laws. politicians , courts, and lawyers have as big a racket going on as doctors, hospitals,insurance companys and drug companys.
a rich man is cured, a poor man dies
a rich man is aquitted a poor man goes to prison
all politicians are rich None are poor
rich get medicine poor do without
trouble with this logic is that when all poor are dead, who is going to work?[V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tomahawk
this countrys problem is that there are too many laws, and more deadbeats getting elected every time you turn around that do nothing but make more laws. politicians , courts, and lawyers have as big a racket going on as doctors, hospitals,insurance companys and drug companys.
a rich man is cured, a poor man dies
a rich man is aquitted a poor man goes to prison
all politicians are rich None are poor
rich get medicine poor do without
trouble with this logic is that when all poor are dead, who is going to work?[V]
I encourage you to avail you of the opportunities in the other countries in the world...
Me I am just fine here in the good ole US of A!0 -
oh don't get me wrong, i love my country, but this country will not stand much longer on the greed of the rich, and it is slowly sinking due to laws and politicians[V] 0 -
Considering the likelihood of my sitting on a jury anytime soon, I'd have to say the questions don't matter... FOR ME.
But, if I were on a jury, it would depend on the evidence and the circumstances.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tomahawk
oh don't get me wrong, i love my country, but this country will not stand much longer on the greed of the rich, and it is slowly sinking due to laws and politicians[V]
I agree w/you on those points. But as a whole we have to either obey the law or revolt against it. There are alot of stupid and bad laws out there.
But there's too much of people, particularly Judges and politicians, who circumvent the law because they don't agree w/it. It has to be applied equally for everyone, or done away with.
One interesting point. THere was a case of a lawyer from Lousianna (don't recall his name) who decided that based on Constitutional Law, that the IRS and the paying of income tax was an illegal "obligation". And he chose not to pay.
Of course the IRS came after him and prosecuted him. And in doing so broke several other laws. But HE won the case and is now sueing THEM.0 -
Income tax - if you look at the law, is self-nullifying in many cases. In particular, as it pertains to your job. You are trading your services for money, your services are NOT worthless, they are worth what you get in the form of a paycheck. So you are in effect trading one thing for another and not coming out ahead. Don't believe it? This argument HAS been used SUCCESSFULLY in income tax evasion cases. Think about it!
We have many laws on the books that are conflicting with other laws. So which do you choose? The laws of your state or the laws of the US (or county or whatever else they throw in)?
This BS about doing what is "legal" and "right" is just that; BS. You have a duty as a free-thinking citizen to make the decision as you see it - NOT as the prosecutor misconstrues it. So for the NFA law, since it IS unconstitutional, you should morally AND legally vote to aquit.
I was on a jury where it was clear that the prosecutor was a personal friend of one of the victims and as such, charged the perp with every crime that possibly applied. This was an unfair and unjust abuse of his powers. I saw this and fought to aquit on all charges (to send a message). Most of the jury were idiots that could not think for themselves. I finally relented to get the trial over with on a few of the charges - the ones that he would have been charged with if the friendship hadn't existed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
so...as a sciopath that advocates murder, It would be fine to aquit a murderer because I think murder is OK?
First of all asinine comments like this are counterproductive to your learning something. If you are so closed minded on understanding that laws are passed by our government and there is not one damn thing you can do about it. The very idea of a representative government precludes the possibility. Jury nullification is NOT a person making law. It is a person using common sense, reason, an informed decision process and moral factors when deciding to convict someone. If the law is NOT just in its application to the accused the man should go free.
A better analogy would be; A man has a sick child in his car choking to death. He speeds at 60 in a 45 at 3:00 AM on a Sunday. A cop tries to pull him over and he won't stop to save the kids life he went directly to the hospital.
Things go bad from there. DA charges all sorts of "pile on" crimes including some felonies.
Can you convict for anything? If you can your conscience needs a lot of work. The law is wielded as a club against many Americans for many reasons; not all the reasons are just.0 -
But that's the same argument the Libs are making in support of illegal immigration. "We have a MORAL obligation to help the needy/poor. And that supercedes the law".
It's a sticky wicket when we decide to start picking and choosing what laws we will obey based on our varied personal senses of values.
Granted in many case such as you point out, there may be extreme circumstances to consider. And that's one reason for the jury system. But except for the occasional extreme circumstance, don't you think we should endevor to apply, obey and prosecute all laws equally?0 -
No
Yes
No0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
But that's the same argument the Libs are making in support of illegal immigration. "We have a MORAL obligation to help the needy/poor. And that supercedes the law".
It's a sticky wicket when we decide to start picking and choosing what laws we will obey based on our varied personal senses of values.
Granted in many case such as you point out, there may be extreme circumstances to consider. And that's one reason for the jury system. But except for the occasional extreme circumstance, don't you think we should endevor to apply, obey and prosecute all laws equally?
Can't you see the difference between the breaking of a just law and reasonable consequences thereof and the misapplication of law and the injustice caused thereby?
And; hell no we should not apply, obey and prosecute all laws equally. Some laws are just WRONG as law and MAY be misapplied. We as Americans have the FINAL say in a jury room on our JUSTICE system. Prosecutors and lawyers could care less about truth and justice. They want to win, win win at all costs. Tell me how the application of laws the the MORON jury convicted Compeon and Raymos on is justice.... I hope some of this is sinking in....0 -
Compeon and Rymos is a misapplication of the law. They were unjustly railroaded by the Govt. I agree that there are many bad laws and unjust prosecuters and judges. And that we should strive to weed them all out.
And that the jury system is in place to give one's peers an option to use their values in deciding ones guilt.
But whereas the situation may vary, the SPIRIT of demanding observation the law as it exists is still in place.
Just as in my example. A man PROVED his case for not paying his taxes and walked.
But IMO the laws regarding automatic weapons and silencers are reasonable. IMO most of us don't NEED these weapons. And the threat they present in the wrong hands justify's the laws. If you want them, aquire them LEGALLY or pay the price. PERIOD.
I don't personally agree w/the Marijuana laws. But until they are changed, I will comply as I expet everyone else should.
There are few things I enjoy more than to go to a honkeytonk, down some beers, shoot some pool, cut a rug and unwind on the weekend. But even tho I've never had a wreck from drunk driving, if I do and attempt to drive home I can be charged w/DUI. So like it or not, I don't do it UNLESS I arrange to do so within the law.
But we see politicians who often voted the laws in place get away w/it.
The law as written should be applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE.
If it's a bad law, get rid of it.
Contact your reps and tell them what you want in exchange for your vote. That's how you do it.
You just can't ignore or refuse to enforce any law you don't like.
Society as a whole sets the standards. Or we end up an unrulely mob.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
Compeon and Rymos is a misapplication of the law. They were unjustly railroaded by the Govt. I agree that there are many bad laws and unjust prosecuters and judges. And that we should strive to weed them all out.
And that the jury system is in place to give one's peers an option to use their values in deciding ones guilt.
But whereas the situation may vary, the SPIRIT of demanding observation the law as it exists is still in place.
Just as in my example. A man PROVED his case for not paying his taxes and walked.
But IMO the laws regarding automatic weapons and silencers are reasonable. IMO most of us don't NEED these weapons. And the threat they present in the wrong hands justify's the laws. If you want them, aquire them LEGALLY or pay the price. PERIOD.
I don't personally agree w/the Marijuana laws. But until they are changed, I will comply as I expet everyone else should.
There are few things I enjoy more than to go to a honkeytonk, down some beers, shoot some pool, cut a rug and unwind on the weekend. But even tho I've never had a wreck from drunk driving, if I do and attempt to drive home I can be charged w/DUI. So like it or not, I don't do it UNLESS I arrange to do so within the law.
But we see politicians who often voted the laws in place get away w/it.
The law as written should be applied EQUALLY to EVERYONE.
If it's a bad law, get rid of it.
Contact your reps and tell them what you want in exchange for your vote. That's how you do it.
You just can't ignore or refuse to enforce any law you don't like.
Society as a whole sets the standards. Or we end up an unrulely mob.
Since when did anything pertaining to the second amendment have to do with NEED? hell for that matter, you don't NEED anything more than a single shot .22 or 12 ga, after all what else do you NEED?
For that matter, what do you need a vehicle that goes over 70 MPH? why do you NEED a 4000 SF home for 2 people?
I am glad you are so happy to have the government set YOUR needs.[V] The question is, where do you draw the line?0 -
I guess the correct answer to say is I would be willing to convict or acquit and enter the case based on the circumstances.
That being said, I do have my own deeply held beliefs and my own interpretation of the Constitution. None of which I would mention to the judge and lawyers.0 -
Something that needs to be addressed here is the duty of a jury. Yes there is a swearing of the oath to uphold the laws. But the higher duty of a jury is not only to decide guilty/not guilty, but to determine the entire circumstances of the case.
If I was on a jury, and my core beliefs disagreed with the circumstances of the case, but facts supported a guilty finding, I would vote and argue for not guilty.
But hey, that's just me.0 -
" You just can't ignore or refuse to enforce any law you don't like."
-Fastrat
Sure you can...and SHOULD
________________________________________________________________________
As a citizen, one has the obligation to do what is necessary to be an agent of change when having the opportunity to effect laws one considers unConstitutional, or wrong in general.
It is not a whim, it is an obligation.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Gotteskrieger
if you were on a jury would you convict for:
1. possesion of an NFA weapon(MG,SBR,silencer),no crime just possesion.
2. possesion of marijuana for personal use.
3. income tax evasion (tax protestor)
I can't imagine any lawyer would want to put me in the a jury but:
1. Probably not, but there are no absolutes with me
I do follow the firearms laws, though personally I don't give a rip what sort of guns someone has so long as they're not robbing places, killing people, or blowing up other peoples property. And no don't tell me about your illegal doings I'd rather not be an accessory.
2. Likely not, I think drug users are mostly idiots, but I also would be ok medical marijuana. If you just want to be a pot head you better have a job and a good sound explaintion of why being an alcoholic, which is legal, won't work for you.
3. Yes, you need to be rapped by the taxman just like me. Either hire a tax attorney to find legal loopholes or pay up. Yea yea lots of tax money gets totally @#$%ing wasted, but to get something out you need to put something in. Don't like that, convert to some anabapist amish order and never leave your farm for anything.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
if the evidence to support the charge exists and is properly presented, a guilty vote on all three from me. my personal opinions on the appropriatness(sp) of a law has no business in the court room. it is the law. fight against the law outside the jurors box.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong. One of the covenants and absolute rights of being a juror is the freedom to judge the person and the LAW THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH BREAKING. If the law is BS then you can find him NOT-GUILTY and walk out knowing you did the American thing.
when you sit on a jury, you take an oath to uphold the law as it is and as it is given to you by the judge. If you're willing to lie to the courts to be able to sit on the jury to enact a jury nullification, by all means do so, but be aware that you will be misrepresenting yourself and your integrity to the judicial system. Do the ends justify the means, in other words?
I respectfully disagree; we as Americans are asked to make sure our best efforts are applied to have justice for the accused. If the law is unjust in its application then we are morally bound to acquit. We Americans currently have two border agents in prison because of the misapplication of law by Johnny Sutton and the UNEDUCATED vote of the jury. That is NOT justice; that is orchestrated federal control, plain and simple.
you can't disagree. It is an indisputable FACT that you have to take that oath before being able to sit on a jury. If you take that oath and don't abide by it, you LIED. It's as simple as that.
If you can't apply the law as given or believe that a particular law is unjust, tell the court so. You will be excused. That way, if a person is convicted, at least it won't be on your head and you won't have intentionally deceived a tribunal.
Wrong; but I am too tired to argue the point. Suffice it to say that free men have the absolute right of refusal over the government. It is granted by God and codified in many areas of Juris Prudience.
To prove my point I will offer this. If the LAW says you can't have sex with your wife will you convict a man and women for doing so just because it is the law imposed by the masters???? Think about it.... the law is the law, I grant you that. But mind numbing obedience to authority gives you absolute oppression.
I wouldn't sit on that jury because such a law is repugnant to me and I would dutifully inform the court of that and be excused. Thus, any conviction would not be of my making. I would make my opposition to such a law be known, by whatever means at my disposal, for as long as it took to get such a law repealed or struck down by an appeals court.
No man is a law unto himself. The entire struggle of civilization over barbarism is a testament to that fact. You are free to disagree with a valid law, you are free to write your representatives, to write letters to the editor, to start your own publication about it, etc. You are even "free" to break such a law, take your chances with a jury of your peers, and pay the consequences, if any. You are even "free" to lie to a judge about your true feelings regarding this law and sit on a jury as a result. I'm not arguing any of that. What I am saying is this: if you take the oath required of jury service, and don't abide by it, you misrepresented yourself at one or more stages of the proceeding. I'm not even "judging" you for such a move. But it is an undeniable fact that a lie, a distortion or inversion of the truth, has occurred and been perpetrated by you. Once again; if you believe the ends justify the means, that is your perogative. I am simply saying that if you do enact such a scheme, you cannot deny that you told a fib to a tribunal of justice. If you didn't, you wouldn't be on that jury to begin with.0 -
"if you believe the ends justify the means..."
I think this may be a meaningless buzz-phrase, laden with emotional content, in order to sway the reader.
Doug0 -
What I find interesting here is how willing we are to be hypocrites.
When Liberals harbor illegal immigrants and marry gay couples we talk about how this is a law and order country. And that regardless of their personal opinions, they should follow the law like everyone else.
But when WE don't like the particular law, well that's different! Circumvent that law any way you can.
I'm not saying that all laws are good and just. And obviously there are many that we disagree with. But our attitudes towards obeying the ones we like and disobeying the ones we don't are a sign that we are headed toward anarchy.0 -
quote:I wouldn't sit on that jury because such a law is repugnant to me and I would dutifully inform the court of that and be excused. Thus, any conviction would not be of my making. I would make my opposition to such a law be known, by whatever means at my disposal, for as long as it took to get such a law repealed or struck down by an appeals court.
Let me get this straight, You would rather have appointees making law?
quote: What I find interesting here is how willing we are to be hypocrites.
When Liberals harbor illegal immigrants and marry gay couples we talk about how this is a law and order country. And that regardless of their personal opinions, they should follow the law like everyone else.
But when WE don't like the particular law, well that's different! Circumvent that law any way you can.
I'm not saying that all laws are good and just. And obviously there are many that we disagree with. But our attitudes towards obeying the ones we like and disobeying the ones we don't are a sign that we are headed toward anarchy.
I thought the discussion was jury nullification, not civil disobedience.0 -
1. HELL NO! (constitution)
2. HELL FREAKIN NO!(who cares...its not a bad drug)
3. What tax?0 -
How is taking an oath to uphold the law and then refusing to do so because you don't agree w/that law not Civil Disobedience?
It's no different than Liberal Judges marrying gay couples or banning guns from Washington DC.
At some point you have to decide which side you're on. Law and Order or Anarchy.
Our Govt. is supposed to be run by "We the People" which in a practical sense means "Majority Rule".
If the majority of Americans are against illegal immigration, then there should be no illegal immigration. And those in the minority who disagree should have to obey the law. Right?
Shouldn't it be the same for Class 3 weapons and Marijuana?
If you don't agree w/the law, and if the majority agree's w/you, then CHANGE it. But if the majority isn't on your side, you have no choice but to uphold and obey it.
In a diverse society, you can't please everyone.
Don't get me wrong. I support the 2nd Amendment and love to own a machine gun. I'm against the IRS and current tax codes. And I think MJ is no worse than alcohol and should be partially legalized.
But as a member of a civiliized society, I understand that just as I cannot drink and drive from a bar after unwinding on a Friday night w/o fear of being arrested. I must follow the laws that society has set forth for the good of all. Despite my personal preference.
Let's not forget WHY machine guns etc are restricted. Because the threat they posed to society outweighted the right of the individual to own one. You don't hunt w/them. And I'm sure you can agree that you wouldn't want your neighbor opening up w/a BAR on a burglar. But Crimmial's were opening up on police, often in urban settings. Now you can still own an MG. But you have do so LEGALLY. And if you can't meet the requirments, you don't get one. IMO it's a reasonable law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
How is taking an oath to uphold the law and then refusing to do so because you don't agree w/that law not Civil Disobedience?
It's no different than Liberal Judges marrying gay couples or banning guns from Washington DC.
At some point you have to decide which side you're on. Law and Order or Anarchy.
Our Govt. is supposed to be run by "We the People" which in a practical sense means "Majority Rule".
If the majority of Americans are against illegal immigration, then there should be no illegal immigration. And those in the minority who disagree should have to obey the law. Right?
Shouldn't it be the same for Class 3 weapons and Marijuana?
If you don't agree w/the law, and if the majority agree's w/you, then CHANGE it. But if the majority isn't on your side, you have no choice but to uphold and obey it.
In a diverse society, you can't please everyone.
Don't get me wrong. I support the 2nd Amendment and love to own a machine gun. I'm against the IRS and current tax codes. And I think MJ is no worse than alcohol and should be partially legalized.
But as a member of a civiliized society, I understand that just as I cannot drink and drive from a bar after unwinding on a Friday night w/o fear of being arrested. I must follow the laws that society has set forth for the good of all. Despite my personal preference.
You do realize that you would not even be mentioning drinking if not for jury nullification? are you willing to leave all or your rights up to a judicial appointee?
BTW,
I saw a program on the history channel last week, the MJ prohibition law was patterned after the NFA tax stamp law.0 -
You are missing my point. Prohibition was repealed because a MINORITY put it in place. And the MAJORITY of Americans were against it.
If WE THE PEOPLE rise up against unjust laws, we CAN CHANGE THEM.
But if the Majority is not on your side, you have no choice but to get w/the program.
I like to go Honkytonkin. But I can't afford a DUI. So unless I can arrange to be in compliance w/the law. I don't go. IMO it's a bummer. It restricts my right and ability to have fun on a Friday nite. But that's the way it is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:I wouldn't sit on that jury because such a law is repugnant to me and I would dutifully inform the court of that and be excused. Thus, any conviction would not be of my making. I would make my opposition to such a law be known, by whatever means at my disposal, for as long as it took to get such a law repealed or struck down by an appeals court.
Let me get this straight, You would rather have appointees making law?
quote: What I find interesting here is how willing we are to be hypocrites.
When Liberals harbor illegal immigrants and marry gay couples we talk about how this is a law and order country. And that regardless of their personal opinions, they should follow the law like everyone else.
But when WE don't like the particular law, well that's different! Circumvent that law any way you can.
I'm not saying that all laws are good and just. And obviously there are many that we disagree with. But our attitudes towards obeying the ones we like and disobeying the ones we don't are a sign that we are headed toward anarchy.
I thought the discussion was jury nullification, not civil disobedience.
BTW: Jury Nullification is a different thread.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
82 comments