A proposition idea to help save California

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Rather non sequiter but I'm not going to argue with you. You enjoy it too much.



That you and I can agree upon. Having worked in the state political system I've been saying the same thing for years. The unfunded mandates and bad statutes propositions have spawned have not served the state well at all.

Why is it a non-sequitor? I was just pointing out that on the subject of ignoring laws and pursuing vigilante justice, conservatives have a history of it. I don't think it's fair to single out liberals, both sides would likely abuse jury nullifacation.

[tickyul]

Juicy Simpson LOVED the concept of Jury Nullification!!!! Too bad he was idiotic enough to find his way back to the pokey.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by zombocom

Why is it a non-sequitor? I was just pointing out that on the subject of ignoring laws and pursuing vigilante justice, conservatives have a history of it. I don't think it's fair to single out liberals, both sides would likely abuse jury nullifacation.

Because I think you missed the sentence in which I said as much without having to resort to the "shock value" of vigilantism and possible racism backlash of lynchings.

[oldtrader]

It would not be the conservative jury that would turn to Jury Nullification. It would be used heavily in Liberal areas of the country. Example a San Francisco jury that was against Marijuana Laws, would come out against any Marijuana Law and would never convict a Marijuana Law violator. Evidence be dammed.

Stop and realize what Jury Nullification really means.

Jury Nullification | LII / Legal Information Institute

[majoun]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

It would not be the conservative jury that would turn to Jury Nullification. It would be used heavily in Liberal areas of the country. Example a San Francisco jury that was against Marijuana Laws, would come out against any Marijuana Law and would never convict a Marijuana Law violator. Evidence be dammed.

Stop and realize what Jury Nullification really means.

Jury Nullification | LII / Legal Information Institute

Most likely in the majority of cases, but I could envision juries in conservative areas using jury nullification regarding gun laws

[armourereric]

The original demise of Jury Nullification in the Federal Court system came about in the 1880's when Republicans responded to complaints of major business' that they could not get convictions against union organizers who resorted to company vandalism. Prior to that it was required that a Federal judge not only include nullification in the jury instruction but also allow the defense push for nullification in their arguments.

Now, I am 5 and a Republican, but I see all these comments about how we have representation and should use the legislative option to enact legal change. Sorry, the last I looked, we have a 2 party system wherein each of the 2 parties tell us who they will let us pick in the primary. In fact they GOP US Senate Cmt. is spending $3M this year to run ads against any primary challenger to an incumbent.

The last I looked there were only 435 members of the US House, a voter to representative ratio of about 750,000 to 1. In Britain it is currently 90,000 to 1. The 2nd least representative body in the US to the House of Representatives is out own state Senate where it is 550,000 to 1

The last I looked, the voters of California passed a proposition only permitting the top 2 vote getters from the primary to appear on the general ballot, so now, we are required by law to only vote for the 2 main party candidates in November.

The last I checked, we, in general, do not elect our judges.

Jefferson and Madison successfully pushed for inclusion of Jury Nullification in the constitution, that is why the federal government could not just eliminate it in the 1880's, but they could and did squash reference to it to the point the the people forgot of it's existence. Living in a state where special interests present a list tot he assembly on a regular basis of "what new things to make illegal" in the hope that the interests will be a recipient of a cut of the added revenue from the resultant fines. Would it not be great if the jury had the option of ruling "the defendant is not guilty because his actions should not be illegal".

[zdg]

Originally Posted by armourereric

Would it not be great if the jury had the option of ruling "the defendant is not guilty because his actions should not be illegal".

It would not.

[never-more]

Originally Posted by armourereric

The original demise of Jury Nullification in the Federal Court system came about in the 1880's when Republicans responded to complaints of major business' that they could not get convictions against union organizers who resorted to company vandalism. Prior to that it was required that a Federal judge not only include nullification in the jury instruction but also allow the defense push for nullification in their arguments.

Now, I am 5 and a Republican, but I see all these comments about how we have representation and should use the legislative option to enact legal change. Sorry, the last I looked, we have a 2 party system wherein each of the 2 parties tell us who they will let us pick in the primary. In fact they GOP US Senate Cmt. is spending $3M this year to run ads against any primary challenger to an incumbent.

The last I looked there were only 435 members of the US House, a voter to representative ratio of about 750,000 to 1. In Britain it is currently 90,000 to 1. The 2nd least representative body in the US to the House of Representatives is out own state Senate where it is 550,000 to 1

The last I looked, the voters of California passed a proposition only permitting the top 2 vote getters from the primary to appear on the general ballot, so now, we are required by law to only vote for the 2 main party candidates in November.

The last I checked, we, in general, do not elect our judges.

Jefferson and Madison successfully pushed for inclusion of Jury Nullification in the constitution, that is why the federal government could not just eliminate it in the 1880's, but they could and did squash reference to it to the point the the people forgot of it's existence. Living in a state where special interests present a list tot he assembly on a regular basis of "what new things to make illegal" in the hope that the interests will be a recipient of a cut of the added revenue from the resultant fines. Would it not be great if the jury had the option of ruling "the defendant is not guilty because his actions should not be illegal".

That would open up a can of worms and a ****storm. There is no telling where it could go. For example, say someone assassinated a politician for "violating the Constitution". The jury might sympathize with his views and than have him acquitted. Or a radical Muslim terrorist shoots up a synagogue and claims freedom of religion for his jihad. If the jury gets packed with people sharing his view, he might just walk free. There has to be a specific set of procedures and regulations so that it doesn't get too out of hand.

Now if you asked the question: Would it not be great if the jury had the option of ruling "the defendant can not be convicted because the law criminalizing his/her actions is unconstitutional"? It would be more predictable, and not get too out of hand.

~never-more