[lbo-talk] Jury duty

Jordan Hayes jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com
Fri Nov 17 05:37:14 PST 2006



> OK, I will answer the question.

Well, you took so long at it that you've lost the thread and my point.

Someone said: I'll vote "not guilty" to any drug crime.

You said:


> still many people charged with drug crimes are actually
> dangerous and violent criminals.

So I said:


> Er, if they are actually a dangerous and violent criminal, they ought
> to have been charged with an actually dangerous and violent crime?
> Or
> are you saying you'd convict on an undangerous and unviolent crime
> just
> to get them off the streets?

So yes of course, if they are charged with a violent crime, and the government makes its case, off they go. We're all with you.

But that's not what we're talking about here, nor is it what I think you were getting at above. So let me make it clear this time: I think you sare saying that if you were on a jury for a non-violent drug-only trial, you'd consider voting not guilty On Principle ... UNLESS ... in your estimation that person was an (unindicted!) "actually dangerous and violent criminal" ...

That is: despite being given one question to answer, you'd rather answer two; you'd be your own little Grand Jury.

Am I characterizing your position correctly?

/jordan



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list