John,
1. That's why the FIJA information includes more than just the word "nullification" (or at least the old information used to [I haven't been there for a while]). 2. Obviously my use of "delete" was "in effect", as you also agree with your descriptions of the likely effect of FIJA-type nullification - except in your last contradictory sentence. Prosecutors will not prosecute if they feel they will not likely win. The remaining question is why you continue to disapprove of FIJA-type nullification. Are people not able to understand FIJA's position on nullification? Should activist groups not name themselves with short terms because they can be misunderstood? I guess they better change "drug law reform" because people will think it means they want harder drug laws, and according to your thinking, will still misunderstand even after hearing the details. Let me rephrase the question. After the jury has heard arguments easily disproving the constitutionality of the law at hand, but also heard hard evidence easily proving the defendant guilty of violating that law, how would you have them vote? -Mark _____ Mark Robert wrote: > I understand your push to argue law before jurors for purposes of > assuring and educating them, but I am not sure I understand your > skepticism against promoting further publicity of FIJA-type jury > nullification. The two are not mutually exclusive. 1. Just using a word, nullification, does not make it clear that is it only unconstitutional official acts that should be "nullified" by acquittal. Historically, most "nullification" has been of unpopular statutes, not unconstitutional ones. That is a critical distinction that mere use of a word obscures. > In fact, even > after successful arguments of unconstitutionality by the defense, > in order for the jury to actually delete the longstanding > unconstitutional legislation at hand, a nullification vote of > acquittal would still be required. Am I thinking straight? 2. No. Acquittal does nothing to remove the statute, except perhaps to persuade legislators that repealing it would be popular and get them re-elected. Enough acquittals can reduce the statute to a "dead letter", on the books but no longer enforced, but does not "delete" anything except the charge in that case. Nothing prevents prosecutors from going on to prosecute other people under the same statute, and they are likely, in today's degraded civic culture, to succeed. _____ [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/
