Many other people think of black jurors who find obviously guilty black criminals not guilty. I support FIJA despite this problem. There is another example of jury nullification about which I have heard often occurred in Texas until about fifty years ago. If a man found his wife serving the pleasure of another man and shot both of them dead, he was hardly ever charged with a crime, since the prosecutor understood that no jury would convict the cuckolded husband. For more information about FIJA, see www.fija.org
For life and liberty, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:47 AM Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Fw: Re: Does FIJA Still Exist? > 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/
