Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:21:14 GMT, "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Now, I am charged with the illegal discharge of a firearm within the
>city
>> >> >limits.
>> >> >
>> >> >Is there any question about my guilt? No
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there is.  Self-defense is an inherent right.  You picked a bad
>> >> example.
>> >
>> >Wrong, it is the perfect example. After all does my self defense in any
>> >manner mean I did NOT violate the law in this action?
>> >
>> >Nope, a clear violation.
>>
>> No, it is NOT a "clear violation"  Self-defense is a legal, affirmative
>> defense.  As a matter of law you are entitled to defend yourself.  So its
>> a bad example.  Get it?
>
>Yep, and it is also a matter of law that you can not discharge a firearm
>within the city limits.
>
>Seems like someone is going to have to decide which law shall be
>nullified.....now doesn't it?

No.  It's clearly established that self defense is a *justification*
defense.  What that means is that a law was violated, but under the law,
the violation is justified in that situation, so that the person is not
guilty.  As a matter of law.

>> >>
>> >> I disagree with you.  Legally.  The jury has the power to engage in
>> >> nullification, not the legal right
>> >
>> >On the contrary, the entire purpose of the jury is nullification and
>given
>> >the legal right to a jury, the jury has the legal right to nullify if
>they
>> >chose.
>>
>> How can the purpose be something that isn't allowed?
>
>Sorry, but it is allowed. Only you assert it isn't.
>
>> Jon tried to explain
>> it: a jury COULD nullify,
>
>they can
>
>> and not get caught with it,
>
>they do, though it isn't necessary.
>
>>but it is not only a
>> violation of their oath,
>
>Wrong. Show me where I am required to persecute a man for doing exactly what
>I would have done in similar circumstances?
>
>>but also not their purpose.
>
>Actually, it is. Because if the only question was if the law was violated we
>would hardly need a jury, would we?

We would still need a jury.  Because virtually everyone would agree that
under the prosecution's theory of what occurred, the person is guilty, but
under the defendant's version, the person is innocent.  So the point of a
jury is not so much to decide legal guilt, but to decide which set of
facts - which side's story - they believe.

>> Again, it's not your place as a jury to say what laws are valid and what
>> aren't.
>
>Ah, but it most certainly is. The validity of the law IS a factor that needs
>to be considered by the jury.
>
>> It's scary to a democracy and equal protection to know that 2 people doing
>> the same exact thing will have different consequences depending on whether
>> or not YOU are on their jury.
>
>No, it is scary to a democracy that you expect people to uphold
>Unconstitutional law.....
>
>THAT is what is scary.
>
>>  You may have the opportunity to nullify,
>> but it doesn't mean you have the right to - any more than a CFO has the
>> opportunity to embezzle corproate money, but not the right.
>
>Perhaps, but I may have the duty to nullify the next time I sit on a case
>that is based on flawed law, or unjust enforcement.
>
>> Have you ever been on a jury?
>
>Yes.
>
>>  Have you listened to the oath and the
>> judge's instructions?
>
>None of which prohibit me from finding the law invalid if it exists in
>violation of Constitution standards.

Marbury v. Madison, for starters.  Only courts can decide what's
unconstitutional.  Each person cannot decide for themselves whether they
believe a law to be constitutional or not.
>
>If you think otherwise, please inform me of what part of the oath or
>instructions requires me to ignore any Constitutional issues in my
>deliberations.
>
>>  You MUST put aside your personal views of the law,
>> and be able to convict *if* guilt is proven to you beyond a reasonable
>> doubt.
>
>Yep, and if I doubt their comission of the crime, the validity of the law,
>and/or the justice in enforcing that law under these circumstances, then I
>shall hold out for a verdict of "Not guilty" as is my duty as an American,
>and as a jurer.
>
>> Let's say I think men are superior to women, or some race is superior to
>> another.  Can I "nullify" someone's obvious guilt just because the
>> defendant is of my preferred status while the victim isn't?
>
>Personal feelings, so your answer is no.

But thinking there is no "justice in enforcing the law under these
circumstances" (your words) is also just personal feelings.   What if I
think it's OK to rape women?  Or to kill people of a certain race?  What
if I think that under those circumstances, the crimes are justified and
there should be no punishment?  One of the problems of nullification is
that there is no containing it.  If a jury can nullify for your reasons,
they can nullify for any reason at all.

>
>Now, on the flip side of your question, let's say the law makes it illegal
>for people of a certain race to sit anywhere but at the rear of a public
>bus.....shall I convict because of the law or shall I note that racial
>discrimination is in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of
>the United States of America and thus that law is invalid?

That issue would be ruled on by a judge, long before the case got to a jury.

>No personal feelings in the matter, but simply the LAW. ALL of the law.
>
>You seem to feel that my decisions to nullify are based on my personal
>feelings, they aren't. They are based upon the law, and if I nullify a
>charge it's because I consider it to be supported by the law and the basis
>for law.
>
>> Your
>> definition of "nullification" seems to be "the jury can disregard the law,
>> but only if it furthers my objectives, not theirs."
>
>Wrong, but do keep playing with your straw, it shows how weak your position
>is.

You said it yourself.  As long as "justice" can be a basis for
nullification, each person who has their own concept of "justice" can have
their own reasons for nullification.  There's no end point.