>That way we don't get, for example, the manifest
injustice of one drug
>dealer walking because of a jury of people like you
while his
>co-conspirator is boiled alive because the jury is of
a different
>composition.
John said:
> So then you're arguing that Noel received the same
punishment for her
drug
offense that I would? Of course not.
Of course I am not arguing that. Your sentence would probably be lighter than hers, assuming you are a white, male middle class first time offender, because her profile is higher. I didn't say the rule of law fixes the problem. But some rules are better than none for this purpose, and appeal to popular justice unconstrained by law is an argument that we should abandon the rule of law altogether.
> The prosecutor has lots of leeway
in
deciding how HE wants to proceed.
Yes, and? How does popular jsutuce unconstrained by law fix that?
> Jury Nullification is a check on the
power of the legislature.
No doubt. And now and then it might be a good thing. But, as Carrol says, like any act of civil disobedience, not as policy.
> It is very democratic.
If you think that disregarding the determinations of the body elected in a democracy to determine the law is democratic.
R says
> judges in Los Angeles County will throw a person off a jury if they believe that person is simply open to jury nullification.
I would too.
> they and DAs also attempt to browbeat, intimidate
and badger jurors
into
"following the law" only.
Heaven forbid! What a ridiculous notion, following the law! R would apparently rather have people hearing cases who announce that they will follow the law when they feel like it and not otherwise. Woj, too, I notice: he doesn't think the drug laws are real laws, despite their being enacted by the legislature and presented to and signed by the executive.
> jurors have gotten into serious legal trouble if, after a verdict is renderd, they admit to the judge they used jury nullification.
Bullshit. There is no law against JN ina ny jurisdiction in the US, and what happens in the jury is a black box. Judges are extremely reluctant to even consider how the jury might have arrived at its decision.
> jury nullification advocates handing out pro nullification leaflets outside courts, on public property, have been arrested.
Um, abstract advocacy of illegal conduct is protected under the 1A. Incitement to violate the law, even if the violation cannot be punished(as with JN), is not protected. So yes, I can see busting JN propagandists who are leafleting courts.
> although i'm not current on it, i believe there have
been attempts to
outlaw
jury nullification in various parts of the united
states, some of which
succeeded.
I don't believe it, and if so, it's unenforceable.
> this ain't a democracy, folks.
Ahh, fascist Amerikkka, an old chant. Sure it's a democracy. It's nota perfect democracy. But what we have won with blood and struggle over 200 years is worthing fighting and dying to keep. It's because it's a democracy that Ashcroft et al make me so mad.
> people opposing the
country's
largest unregulated monopoly should very carefully
consider what they
do and
when they do it; legal professionals know the ins and
outs of the law
and we
don't.
Evil lawyers, another old chant. We are of course a regulated monopoly. Me, I'd be happy to see the monopoly disappear -- I believe free markets and competition. Glad to see you on my side on this one. But if did disappear, I'd be pretty damn careful about whose advice I took on legal matters. It's bad enough with the monopoly, where there are tens of thousands of liscened idiots who somehow got through law school and passed the bar exam.
I said:
> --I AM a lawyer, though I don't see that that is
> relevant here.
>
R replied:
> that's a shame because your view of the legal system
> is conditioned by your
> professional education and experience. your
> background is very pertinent.
> when you say it's a matter of law rather than of
> justice, that's how a
> lawyer thinks.
My point is that even if you would expect me to say that, as I would expect a radical ignorant of the law who hasn't given much thought to poltical philosophy either to say what you said, my background is irrelevant to to the truth of my claims. You have to answer my argument, not cast ad hominem aspersions on my background.
>
> we do not have a system of laws rather than people;
> judges make the law, not
> legislators. otherwise the intent of the law would
> be the governing factor
> in US law as it is in British law.
You lost me here. As a matter of fact, in almost every state and most federal jusrisdictions (and I only say "almost" because I haven't reviewed every one, I just don't know of any exceptions), the intent of the legislature is the key to the interpretation of statutes. I am not sure what you mean by the intent of the "law" if taht means something else. And I do not see how the denial of the promacy of legislative intent necesasrily means that we have a govt of of men ratherthan laws, and that law is made by judges. For example, one might think that the legislature is not the sort of thing that can have an intent, but the plain language of the law as enacted by the legislature should gocern, whatever the judge's personal view of the matter. This is also the law in every US jurisdiction (I mean the plain language rule), and something to which almost every judge would agree, including the judges for whom I used to clerk.
the pretense
> that our court system is
> anything other than a political arena 99 percent of
> the time is ludicrous.
Sez you. The "pretense" as you call it is the basis of civilized society. but let me tell you first first hand experience based on my involvement in helping to make judicial decisions that in 99% of the time, politics (understood as the political preferences of the judge) doesn't enter into the matter. Based on clerking in the Chicago federal courts for four years at the district (trial) and appellate levels, I can recall very clearly the half dozen times I encountered politics in the courts; all were shockingly unusual. Mostly you just look up the law, figure out how it applies, and apply it. Political sympathies might give you more incentive to look to help out a plaintiff or criminal defendant (if you area liberal)or defenadnt or the govt (if you are a conservative), but if you are honest, and most judges try to be, you can't help someone out if the law's not there.
>
> your suggestion that people who don't like the law
> try having it changed (i
> assume rather than practicing jury nullification)
> shows no understanding of
> the political system. ever try having a law
> changed youself? you don't
> live in an elementary democracy.
How long have you been around politics, fella? I been trying to change the laws for over 30 years. No understanding of politics, fuck you. You think you're so goddam knowing. What you are is an ignorant cynic. I am experienced activist, a Guild and ACLU attorney in Chicago, and (incidentally) a PhD in political science and former political philosopher by trade. You want a complete roadmap on the various senses in which our democracy is deformed and limited and corrupted, you came to the right place. You couldn't even begin to start to catch up with the amount of bad news that I could give you. But it hasn't made me give up on our democracy. It makes me mad and it makes me wanna fightto keep it strong and make it better.
jks
>
> R
>
>
>
>
> --It's not a matter of what's just. It's a matter of
> what the law is. People
> have different ideas about what is just. There are
> disagreementsa bout the
> law, too, but these are much more constrained, in
> part because we much
> maligned professioins are trained to follow rules
> and obey precedents. You
> might think that it's just to let people sell drugs.
> Other might think that
> drug dealers should be boiled alive. The place where
> we decide questions
> like that is called the legislature. Once the
> legislature settles it for the
> moment, we are all supposed to apply the rules they
> adopt on our behalf.
> That way we don't get, for example, the manifest
> injustice of one drug
> dealer walking because of a jury of people like you
> while his co-conspirator
> is boiled alive because the jury is of a different
> composition. If you don't
> like the law -- the rules the legislature adopts --
> try to have them
> changed. This isn'! t rocket science. It's
> elementary democracy.
>
> R <rhisiart at charter.net> wrote: i'm not a lawyer.
> but my experience is they
> hate it. it's a threat. especially to those
> lawyers who've become judges.
> you see, the common human isn't smart enough to know
> what's just and what
> isn't without "professional" help.
>
> i'll step aside and let the lawyers speak for
> themselves.
>
> R
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon Johanning
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Jury nullification (was:
> volume
>
>
> I was once rejected for jury duty in Philadelphia
> after I expounded a
> jury nullification position. I wasn't really trying
> to get myself
> excused; I really believed it. However, my dismissal
> may have been due
> simply to my very confused explanation of my views
> sounding like the
> ravings of a madman.
>
> A question for the list's lawyers: what do they
> think of potential
> jurors who take such a position?
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 09:50 AM, Wojtek
> Sokolowski wrote:
>
> > Actually, I take jury duty seriously, and my
> experience so far is that
> > most people do as well. In fact, I would like to
> serve on a drug case -
> > because it would give me an opportunity to refuse
> to convict under the
> > rubric of jury nullification of unjust or simply
> idiotic laws (such as
> > drug laws in the US).
>
>
>
> Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
> ______________________________
> "When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I
> asked why are they
> poor, they called me a communist."
> -Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop,
> Propaganda and the Public
> Mind
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com