Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Asmodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clay S. Conrad) wrote in 
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > You are setting up and attempting to knock down a strawman
> 
> The very thought of freedom makes them wet their pants.

I don't see it as a fear of freedom, but a fear of letting Joe SixPack
decide whether the law is to be applied in a given case.  It is not so
much anti-freedom, as it is just plain old garden variety elitism.

However, there is no problem, as I see it, with letting people decide
where justice lies after hearing all the evidence, all the judge's
instructions, and after having the opportunity to personally view the
accused and the accuser and participate in deliberations with eleven
of their neighbors.  If a person cannot make a reasonable,
unprejudiced, and just decision in that context, then the real
question should be: how can we trust them with a BALLOT after hearing
only the soundbytes and misinformation on the media?

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.  If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely, is it not reasonable that power is least corrupting when
it is held for a short period of time, anonymously, by people who did
not seek it, and over only a single issue, with the knowledge that
next roll of the dice it may be those who now hold power who are to be
subjected to its might?  Power held under those conditions is more
ennobling than corrupting.

Clay S.Conrad