John,
>From my angle, we have the problem of extremely high conviction rates right now. I don't believe we would see MORE guilty verdicts from "vote-your-conscience" jury nullification. Frankly, I don't think such a fear is reasonable regarding jury nullification. Just how would a conviction-nullification work? I mean, who would see that as nullification, when that's the status quo? Or am I simply exaggerating? I don't think so. 98% conviction rates are representative of the tragic state of courtroom juries today. You think educating juries about nullification would actually increase them? I don't. I think it would drastically reduce them - and in effect castrate unjust legislation. AFAIK, there is no other realistic mechanism to reverse longstanding unconstitutional legislation. I agree with your position on law and authority in principle. But even if constitutionality and authority were argued before the jury, the jury could not vote down law or fire authority figures. Technically, the law would still remain law and the asshole authority figure would still remain the asshole authority figure during deliberations, leaving jury nullification as the only option. Surely you are not putting your faith in the judge to do the acquitting (after hearing arguments of unconstitutionality and/or non-authority)! I see no alternative but to place the power squarely back in the hands of the people - and I see education about nullification as a very good way to do that. -Mark _____ There is in the ways positions are stated. One branch prefers the language, "Vote your conscience," and only seeks instructions to jurors that they have the right to judge the law as well as the facts in reaching a general verdict. My branch argues that formulation seems to approve of jurors ignoring the law, or deciding not to enforce laws they don't like, or even convict a "bad guy" even if there is no statutory foundation for it, or if the rights of the accused has been violated in the course of the investigation, prosecution, or the trial. My branch argues jurors have the moral and civic duty, like a good judge, to bring a verdict according to law, even if they disapprove of the law, but also to be able to decide what the law is and what it is not, and to detect when the charge is not authorized by a statute, or a statute by the applicable constitution, or when the court lacks jurisdiction, or when the rights of the defendant have been abused. There is no way they can do that unless they are either experts in the law, or hear all arguments of law made in their presence, read the briefs, and have the use of a good law library -- the same things the bench needs to do his job. Many cases involve legal issues on which none of the participants are expert, so it is a learning experience for everyone. > You say my signature needs some clarification. Trouble is, as > signatures go, it's already too long. Yet, I would like to see > your briefest clarification added. Argue law before jury or acquit. Presume nonauthority; prove authority. -- _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
