On 11/29/2013 10:04 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > I agree, except I believe he should be *tried* rather than *prosecuted* for > the laws he (allegedly) broke. Tried by a jury of his peers (other > whistleblowers? :-). I’m a firm believer in jury nullification.
Good point. I suppose "prosecuted" is a vague term. I also believe in trial by jury. But 2 recent news articles speak to how badly it can go wrong: Owner of alleged Satanic sex abuse daycare released as case against her falls apart http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/27/owner-of-alleged-satanic-sex-abuse-daycare-released-as-case-against-her-falls-apart/ Jury: Newegg infringes Spangenberg patent, must pay $2.3 million http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/jury-newegg-infringes-spangenberg-patent-must-pay-2-3-million/ It's possible that well educated judges will make better decisions in some circumstances. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
