From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>As ever, I'm open to correction and I hear what Steve says below
>>although I would like to see more before I'm convinced.
>
>Jonathan,
> You have described what currently goes on in British Courts,
>but it is not neccessarily right. Abolition of the Grand Jury in the 1930's
>is the root of the problem IMHO.
I've heard the term 'grand jury', but plead ignorance. What _is_ a
grand jury?
>"The power of the jury to nullify was first exercised in a seventeenth
>century English court and was discussed in an article by Godfrey
>Lehman in the November 1988 issue of The Justice Times.
[snip]
>"By nullifying, the jury corrects governmental abuses and usurpations
>one at a time without violence, within the arena of the courtroom,
>it is not only
>the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
>and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their
>right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of
>the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or
>oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
>execution of, such laws.
I like the sound of it! :-)
If a jury can 'nullify' a law, then it can overturn the decisions of
Parliament. If that's so, then it means a group of 12 *un*-elected
people can overrule the will of 600-odd *elected* MPs. If I understand
this correctly, it means that juries are supreme over Acts of Parliament
and, hence, supreme to Parliament itself? Under common law?
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty
is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==================================================================
Keith Borer Consultants, Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR, England
tel: + 44 191 386 6107 fax: + 44 191 383 0686
visit our web site at http://www.borer.demon.co.uk
Lat. 54 34.24 N Long. 1 20.17 W
==================================================================
--
Juries are the guardians of our rights (supposedly) - if Parliament
usurps those rights juries can decide that a law violates those rights
and find "not guilty" a person charged with breaking that law.
Realistically it would only happen in the most outrageous cases, e.g.
if Parliament passed a law requiring us all to jump off a cliff I suspect
that juries would find people not guilty for failing to comply!
A Grand Jury sits on more than one case (or can). For example, you
can be called to a Grand Jury in some countries and serve for six months
or a year. If I recall correctly they investigate in a manner similar
to a coroner's court and decide if the facts warrant a haebeas corpus,
calling an individual to court to face charges.
In a self-defence case the case will go before a Grand Jury, who will
decide whether the person who acted in self-defence should face trial
for killing another person (or seriously injuring them or whatever).
If they decide not, they issue a "no true bill" deciding against charges
being filed.
Essentially the decision to prosecute is taken out of the hands of the
prosecutor to a large extent and placed in the hands of the Grand Jury.
It works differently from State to State and country to country but that's
the gist of it. Grand Juries usually decide on a balance of probabilities
rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most countries have done away with them because it's difficult to find
people willing to sit on a jury that long plus politicians don't like
political decisions being questioned.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
