Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

    Are you suggesting that judges continue to interfere with jury
nullification, or are you arguing that the government should make the
abolition of the jury system official and not even maintain the appearance
that this check against the government continue to exist?
"Robert H. Risch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 29 Nov 2003 12:07:33 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clay S. Conrad)
> wrote:
>
> >In spite of the hysteria concerning individual cases, history shows
> >juries tend to abuse their power less frequently than any other actors
> >in the system.
>
> Not everybody agrees with you.  In particular, here is something from
> one of your (and my) heroes.
>
> Works of Mahatma Gandhi (vol. 47):
> "A correspondent reminds me that the A.I.C.C. has omitted from its
> recital
> of fundamental rights that of trial by jury.  I do not know the mind
> of the
> other members.  Personally, I would have resisted the inclusion.  I am
> unconvinced of the advantages of jury trials over those by judges.  In
> coming to a correct decision, we must not be obsessed by our
> unfortunate
> experience of the judiciary here, which in political trials has been
> found
> notoriously partial to Government.  At the right moment, juries have
> been
> found to fail even in England.  When passions are roused, juries are
> affected by them and give perverse verdicts.  Nor need we assume that
> they
> err always on the side of leniency.  I have known juries finding
> prisoners
> guilty in the face of evidence and even judge's summing up to the
> contrary.
>  We must not slavishly copy all that is English.  In matters where
> absolute
> impartiality, calmness and ability to sift evidence and understand
> human
> nature are required, we may not replace trained judges by untrained
> men
> brought together by chance.  What we must aim at is an incorruptible,
> impartial and able judiciary right from the bottom".
>
> RHR