JURY RIGHTS in the U.S.A.
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/24/08
Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

"In an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the law as well as the facts."

The juror has a right and a duty to decide not only if the law was broken, but if the law was being applied appropriately to the case, and if the law is a just law at all in the first place.

Otherwise, the jury would be reduced to a rubber stamp action of brainlessly deciding, 'was the law broken?--guilty', and 'was the law not broken--not guilty', in which case the prosecutor goes about proving endlessly beyond a doubt that yes indeed the law was broken and no self-respecting jurist has a right or a duty to do anything but say 'yes sir, guilty, guilty, guilty'.

According to Chief Justice John Jay, (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829), who is considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States, and served in the Continental Congress, and was elected President of that body, you as a jurist have a right and a duty to evaluate everything before you, and to determine if the law that was allegedly broken is in fact itself in violation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Suppose some state passes a law requiring everyone on the job to 'speak proper English', with huge penalties of prison time and fines for 'third offenders' under the so-called 'Three Strikes Law'. Someone is caught 'breaking the law' because she cannot speak proper English at work.

It could be anybody, but let us say she is an Asian doctor practicing for minimum wage in an irreplaceable staff position at a free clinic in a major US city, and actually speaks English, but has trouble pronouncing many English words properly. The case goes to court. The prosecutor argues endlessly before you as a jurist, 'the defendant broke the law, and the proof is overwhelming' and there is nothing else to it but to find the defendant guilty. Huge punishments loom over the defendant. In the jury room for final deliberations, everyone agrees the defendant is guilty, except you. Everyone votes openly, and they all turn and stare at you, and their body language and facial expressions put enormous pressure on you to mindlessly agree. A virtuous life is about to be ruined, the defendant's.

You the jurist have the power to decide, 'the defendant is not guilty because the law is being unjustly applied, because the person cannot speak flawless English in the first place', and you also have the power to decide and declare, 'additionally, the law is an unjust law and is being applied in an unjust way'.

But to stick to your rights and make decisions like this, the entire subject of 'Jury Rights' has to be familiar to you to the point that you can refuse to mindlessly agree with everyone else who sits there stupidly nodding their empty heads and saying in effect, 'yep, the law was broken so the defendant is automatically guilty'.
5463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/24/08
You are a lot for these kids to care sooooo Go away or say something that pisses them off, Then they would care old man.
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/25/08
as i write this, Sulla ^ has been banned. i still can't find anything relevant to reply to his remarks.

a jurist has the power to nullify any unjust law that is put before him or her in court to rule on. not just whether the law was broken, but whether the law itself is unjust. that is why it is called Jury Nullification. it is your right as an american citizen to expect jurors to rule in your favor by using this right. it is your right as an american citizen to exercise the power of Jury Nullification if you are called to jury duty.
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/25/08
This might should go in Extended Discussion instead of General with all the Naurto and other crap threads that people keep creating.
Posted 4/25/08 , edited 4/25/08

shibole wrote:

This might should go in Extended Discussion instead of General with all the Naurto and other crap threads that people keep creating.


if you didnt notice, that section no longer cease to exist
Posted 4/25/08 , edited 4/25/08

quynhie wrote:

shibole wrote:
This might should go in Extended Discussion instead of General with all the Naurto and other crap threads that people keep creating.

if you didnt notice, that section no longer cease to exist

What's this then?

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumcategory-16/Extended-Discussion.html
Posted 4/25/08 , edited 4/25/08

shibole wrote:


quynhie wrote:

shibole wrote:
This might should go in Extended Discussion instead of General with all the Naurto and other crap threads that people keep creating.

if you didnt notice, that section no longer cease to exist

What's this then?

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumcategory-16/Extended-Discussion.html


oh shit, i take that back xD
Ghost
AHTL 
93499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / Norway
Online
Posted 1/15/10 , edited 1/15/10
OP nuked, feel free to recreate thread. (OP should learn how to start a thread on CR <.<)
You must be logged in to post.