|
Termyn8or -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/5/2011 12:07:30 PM)
|
The concepts of due process and juries have been around for a long time. But I don't really recognize how this should affect our law here and now. There is one jurisdictional challenge nobody would ever make, that is that of the Constitution. What it says goes. What is outlined there supersedes all precedent. I'm in total denial of the influence of foreign law, and I don't mean that in the common sense. I mean that in the sense that, our Constitution was written, ratified and is supposedly in effect now.
You can go back to the code of Hamuabi if you want, but it simply does not apply here. If we don't stand on our Law, we have nothing. The tenets of our Constitution are not welcome in courtrooms here, and I imagine the same of the Magna Carta in England. They don't want to hear it.
We have our problems and they have their's.
Fuck the dawg - he can stop reading right now. The judge back in 1982 who my lawyer convinced not to throw the book at me was exercising sane judgement despite his personal loss. Can the average Citizen do that ? When you get charged with that, and there actually WAS a wreck, you don't usually want a jury. I was glad I didn't hurt anyone, I acted remorseful, actually I was. I also had the guy's truck half paid off by the time I walked in there for sentencing. That sentence would enrage MADD to the nth degree. They were not present - by design.
The reason I bring this up is because justice is not served very well. Even if a jury is cognizant of their power, they still have their own viewpoints, which may be radical, and I don't mean the good way. There is also the problem of evidence exclusion, which is still up to the judge. There have been a couple of pushes over the years for "fully informed juries". A nice concept, but even if it flew, how to implement it ? Allow all evidence no matter how inconclusive ? Each trial would last months.
Simply having a jury does not guarantee justice will be served, especially these days. Old western shows where someone runs in the court and saves someone from the hangman in the nick of time are largely fiction, and even though it probably did happen at one time or another, it probably wasn't the norm. The norm was more likely people relying on their personal opinion of the defendant for direction rather than the facts.
Of course there is always filing for a change of venue, but that is done very rarely, not only is it rarely appropriate alot of people don't even think about it. Meeting the required grounds is not all that easy either. Prejudice must be proven, try that sometime.
So the thing is, just how much would juries empowered by the right of nullification do in the name of justice ? Most people don't have the authoritative stance when it comes to law. In other words they do not believe that the People should direct the law, they believe that the law should direct the people. They think the law is some sort of higher power, ala God. "They" pass a seatbelt law, the sheeple will start wearing seatbelts. "They" pass a helmet law, sheeple will start wearing helmets.
Not this one guy in CA. He killed himself over it. I don't think that was quite effective, or smart, but he did it. My problem with it is that the law should never have been passed. When the legislators do not understand what form the law should take in this country, we are pretty fucked.
Others are not like me. If on a jury I would vote to acquit on any law I deem unconstitutional, period. Caught with tons of pot ? Dead to rights. Right there, video of the deal and eveything. I would hang the jury if necessary.
T^T
|
|
|
|
