[lbo-talk] Jury duty

[andie nachgeborenen]

Doesn't it depend on the drug suspect, the facts in
the case? Even if you think, as I do, that we
incarcerate far too many people, that currently
illegal drugs should be legal, that the drug laws are
inequitably enforced in a racist way, and that
sentences are far too severe, still many people
charged with drug crimes are actually dangerous and
violent criminals. Some are hapless victims, low-level
dealers, mere transporters or street dealers of drugs
-- but some are genuine menaces who order killings and
ruin neighborhoods, leaving large numbers of people in
fear. 

The Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, formerly the El
Rukhns, as well as the Russian, Israeli, and Columbian
"Mafias" and other criminal enterprises that run drugs
in this town (Chicago) and others are full of people
you really don't want running around loose. They
aren't too popular in minority communities, whose
lives and neighborhoods they poison, either. Obviously
those people should be punished only if actually
guilty, but a blanket statement that you'd look for
any excuse to acquit a drug suspect, period, is 
pretty naive and formulaic.

Wrt to the question asked, jury nullification is an
honorable tradition, but to make your point about why
you voted to acquit, whether it is because the cops
were testilying (an actual term they use) or because
you don't like the drug laws or whatever reason, you
have to make a public statement (which is your right).
A mere vote to acquit is too ambigious.  

--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


> 
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:22 PM, John Thornton wrote:
> 
> > A friend just finished jury duty in Federal court
> and had a  
> > difficult time reaching a verdict. It was a drug
> case involving  
> > transporting meth. The problem she had was that
> she felt the police  
> > lied and tampered with some of the evidence to
> strengthen their  
> > case but that they did so unnecessarily. She
> believed the defendant  
> > was shown to be guilty even without the
> questionable evidence. Her  
> > question was basically whether it was acceptable
> to find a  
> > defendant not guilty, in spite of believing in his
> guilt, in order  
> > to punish the police for lying and altering
> evidence? I'm curious  
> > what others think they would do in a similar
> situation.
> 
> I'd look for every excuse I could find to acquit a
> drug suspect.
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com