Jon,
1. Then you admit that it works. Regarding assisted suicide, I'm
guessing they finally got a dum jury, where not even one juror
knew about FIJA. Educating the public is the key. It only takes
one in 12.
2. & 4. Yes, well "Libertarian" is one of the most oft
misunderstood. But what are you gonna do? Rename everything to
coddle to those who can't read past one word? Maybe so; see
below.
3. We agree that FIJA is a good name (acronym).
5. I think I understand you better now. You don't have to call
the juror's "not guilty" vote "nullification" because the
previous law argument served to nullify (in effect) the law (or
show that it was never a law in the first place). Even though
your idea may only be different from nullification in semantics,
I can see the reasoning. But since I'm not familiar with it, let
me ask some things. Isn't the goal of this "top down" plan gonna
be MORE difficult to achieve? Don't you have to be more powerful
than the judges and prosecutors, who don't want to allow these
arguments in their courtrooms? Even if you were to miraculously
effect such a change, doesn't this plan depend on trusting the
gov to continue to do it right? When it comes down to it, which
is easier: defeating the gov, or educating the people?
The only difference I see is that you are promoting gov-allowed
education of the jury during trial, and I am promoting education
of the jury before trial. You can tell people: "unconstitutional
laws were never laws, so voting to acquit no matter the evidence
is not technically nullification" DURING trial or you can tell
them that BEFORE trial. But considering the state of our gov
today (huge, powerful and corrupt) which would be easier? I think
educating people before they get on a jury sounds easier. It's
good that you are helping people that don't like the idea of
nullification by easing their conscience, but it seems like your
efforts would better spent getting your ideas integrated into the
FIJA literature rather than trying to change the court system.
After all, your idea doesn't really refute the FIJA purpose; it
just words it differently. It really doesn't matter to me whether
it's nullification or not, just as long as the defendant charged
with violating an unconstitutional law is acquitted.
OK, I'm starting to come around to agreeing with your dim view of
"nullification". Let's get rid of it - just like they got rid of
"abortion" and renamed it "pro-choice". Instead of
"nullification", how about these:
"FIJA-type acquittal"
"FIJA acquittal"
"Conscientious acquittal"
"Constitutional acquittal"
"Fully-informed acquittal"
Any of those sound better? They kinda combine/allow both ideas.
-Mark
PS: How about revising my signature to the effect:
"Vote to acquit no matter the evidence because there can be no
violation when there was no law; because an unconstitutional law
is the same as no law."
_____
mark Robert wrote:
> Prosecutors will not prosecute if they feel they will not
likely
> win.
1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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
<http://www.google.com/custom?q=%22ab+initio%22&sa=Google+Search&;
cof=T%3AFFFFFF%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fimg%2Fba
nner.jpg%3BLC%3ABBBBFF%3BBGC%3A000000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BVLC%3AFF444
4%3BGL%3A2%3BAWFID%3A33d4cc2e0540ce27%3B&domains=constitution.org
&sitesearch=constitution.org>
&sa=Google+Search&cof=T%3AFFFFFF%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitut
ion.org%2Fimg%2Fbanner.jpg%3BLC%3ABBBBFF%3BBGC%3A000000%3BAH%3Ace
nter%3BVLC%3AFF4444%3BGL%3A2%3BAWFID%3A33d4cc2e0540ce27%3B&domain
s=constitution.org&sitesearch=constitution.org
-- Jon
_____
[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/
