mark Robert wrote:
> Prosecutors will not prosecute if they feel they will not likely
> win.
Eventually, if a pattern emerges of juries refusing to convict. But one or a
few
will probably not be enough. They have to not only not convict, but publicize
their reasons for doing so in a way that diffuses through society and takes the
aspect of a movement. This happened most notably in the 19th century when
northern
juries refused to render verdicts against fugitive slaves, and in the
Prohibition
Era when juries began to refuse to convict bootleggers and moonshiners. For a
while it looked like a pattern was emerging of acquitting Jack Kevorkian and
others like him who assisted suicide, but then the statute was changed and the
prosecutors finally got a conviction, after many tries.
> The remaining question is why you continue to disapprove of
> FIJA-type nullification. Are people not able to understand FIJA's
> position on nullification?
Too many do not. If you use the term "nullification" in many circles, the first
thing people think of are all the cases in which whites who committed crimes
against blacks where acquitted by mostly or entirely white juries. It also
reminds
them of cases in which local juries acquit their local corrupt officials who
are
mainly preying on outsiders, or to render judgments against local businesses
who
owe money to out-of-town or out-of-state claimants.
> Should activist groups not name
> themselves with short terms because they can be misunderstood?
Generally they should not. And FIJA has not. "Fully informed jury" avoids
misunderstanding, whereas "Nullification Association" would not.
> 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.
Keep in mind that every reform movement has its adversaries, who often have
more
money and more access to the media, where, if there is any opening for
misunderstanding, those adversaries will take advantage of it to discourage
support for it.
That has been a problem with the militia movement. Adversaries worked
diligently
to promulgate the idea that "militia" = "armed and dangerous group of
malcontents
of limited education". A lot of people are figuring out that is a
mischaracterization, but too many bought into the lie and still cling to it,
because they hear the term being used in negative ways in the mainstream media
("the Gangaweed militia today massacred a village of helpless people in
Darfur").
I'm not advocating militia activists abandon the term, only that they work
harder
to keep their images impeccable.
> 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?
Not guilty. Because there is no law. An unconstitutional statute is not a law.
It
is null and void, as though it had never been adopted. Never mind that it is on
the books, or even that it is being successfully prosecuted. The ancient Latin
maxim is "Nullem crimen sine leges." There is no crime without a law. Moreover,
it
is not void from the point a court says so, but from inception, /ab initio/,
whether a court says so or not, and we all have a duty to enforce the law, not
what courts or anyone else says is the law. We all have to make an independent
determination of that.
Do a Google search at http://www.constitution.org/search.htm limited to our
site
on the phrase "ab initio" and find all the many instances in which this concept
is
affirmed. Here is the direct link, which may get wrapped in your message
display:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=%22ab+initio%22&sa=Google+Search&cof=T%3AFFFFFF%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fimg%2Fbanner.jpg%3BLC%3ABBBBFF%3BBGC%3A000000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BVLC%3AFF4444%3BGL%3A2%3BAWFID%3A33d4cc2e0540ce27%3B&domains=constitution.org&sitesearch=constitution.org
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions
for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/
