Irish law is crazy!

[Dixie]

This may be true. And if it happened and you did it on the spur of the moment your charges and subsequent sentence might be somewhat lighter; however if this were to ever happen and your post here were to be introduced into court it would indicate that you had premeditated committing a crime in just such a circumstance; thus making any legal problems that much more difficult.

True, but very seldom does a jury take a random posting on the Internet as serious evidence, unless it's in the case of child pornography and luring minors for sex over the Internet for lewd acts.

 

[Berry]

Instructing the jurors on the law, and telling them how to vote are two entirely different things.

.

Sorry. But telling someone they must vote within a dichotomy is telling someone how to vote. If you find he broke the law then he is guilty: If you find he did not break the law he is not guilty.

May I point you to the foundations of our legal system: Common Law: The basic principles upon which our legal system is founded. The original idea was not whether the accused was guilty of displeasing the king, but whether the citizens would hand over the person who did so.

I didn't say that judges should tell jurors that they can "vote as they please" in some willy-nilly fashion without following the law..


.

But until 1890 juries were told almost exactly that -- To vote according to your conscience -- NOT -- To vote according to law.

I didn't say that juries should make or break laws.

But that is exactly what the juries are there for -- To give the people a strong voice in the legislative branch of the government -- May I point you to the concept of "Jury Nullification" which at one time was used extensively in this country.

I didn't say that juries should make or break laws. How on earth can juries "make" laws anyway? They aren't part of the legislature.

May I posit the Scopes trial for your edification.

Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution -- Which was against the law -- And the result was?

The jury decided Evolution could be taught in the schools. By refusing to convict him.

Which changed American history.

 

[Reba]

Sorry. But telling someone they must vote within a dichotomy is telling someone how to vote. If you find he broke the law then he is guilty: If you find he did not break the law he is not guilty.

May I point you to the foundations of our legal system: Common Law: The basic principles upon which our legal system is founded. The original idea was not whether the accused was guilty of displeasing the king, but whether the citizens would hand over the person who did so.

But until 1890 juries were told almost exactly that -- To vote according to your conscience -- NOT -- To vote according to law.

But that is exactly what the juries are there for -- To give the people a strong voice in the legislative branch of the government -- May I point you to the concept of "Jury Nullification" which at one time was used extensively in this country.

May I posit the Scopes trial for your edification.

Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution -- Which was against the law -- And the result was?

The jury decided Evolution could be taught in the schools. By refusing to convict him.

Which changed American history.

I thought you were referring to current juries of your experience. If you notice, all my posts were in the present tense.

Conscience is not dependable; that's why juries have to follow the laws.

 

[Berry]

I thought you were referring to current juries of your experience. If you notice, all my posts were in the present tense.

Conscience is not dependable; that's why juries have to follow the laws.

I doubt we will ever agree on that.

Some laws are great: others are terrible.

Laws are not dependable; That is why we have juries in the first place.

It does not matter whether we are discussing a case 500 years ago or one today.

 

[Berry]

True, but very seldom does a jury take a random posting on the Internet as serious evidence, unless it's in the case of child pornography and luring minors for sex over the Internet for lewd acts.

I really hope you are right in this as people often say things on the net to inspire discussion, understand the opinions of others, or simply in jest or parody, that could be very damaging under the right circumstances.

 

[Reba]

I doubt we will ever agree on that.

Some laws are great: others are terrible.

Then change the laws thru the legislature.

It does not matter whether we are discussing a case 500 years ago or one today.

Yes, it does. The juries of today operate under today's laws and procedures, not yesterday's.

The United States wasn't even a nation 500 years ago.

 

[Tousi]

Then change the laws thru the legislature.


Yes, it does. The juries of today operate under today's laws and procedures, not yesterday's.

The United States wasn't even a nation 500 years ago.

He was referring to the fact that our laws are derived/have evolved from English common law. However, you're right; I don't know what he's getting at.

 

[Reba]

He was referring to the fact that our laws are derived/have evolved from English common law. However, you're right; I don't know what he's getting at.

Yes, I know the history of our laws.

It seemed off track from the discussion about current gun laws.

My fault for allowing myself to be led off on a rabbit trail.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

He got a bit of a left-libertarian view on the jury system... That's why he's making his point... He believes people should go by their consciences, rather than what other legal bodies tell them.

 

[Reba]

He got a bit of a left-libertarian view on the jury system... That's why he's making his point... He believes people should go by their consciences, rather than what other legal bodies tell them.

Sadly, people's consciences are very inconsistent and unreliable. Some people don't even have functioning consciences. If they did, we wouldn't have all this crime in the first place.

 

[Jiro]

He got a bit of a left-libertarian view on the jury system... That's why he's making his point... He believes people should go by their consciences, rather than what other legal bodies tell them.

:Ohno: good lord! I certainly don't want our jury system to operate like that

 

[Berry]

Yes, I know the history of our laws.

It seemed off track from the discussion about current gun laws.

My fault for allowing myself to be led off on a rabbit trail.

I do not see it as either off track or as a rabbit trail.

I met a man who said he cried when he voted guilty, and he said he cried when the man was sentenced, and he told me he would have done exactly what the man had done had he been in the same situation.

When I asked why he voted guilty he said he believed it was his duty as a juror to determine the man's guilt or innocence according to the law -- And he was guilty.

I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not even going to say what I would do in any particular situation because I do not know that until it happens.

I'm saying you have a choice.

I'm saying he has to live with himself, and you have to live with yourself.

I choose to do those things that make me feel proud to be me when I look in the mirror in the morning.

He got a bit of a left-libertarian view on the jury system... That's why he's making his point... He believes people should go by their consciences, rather than what other legal bodies tell them.

Pretty close. It is interesting that Buddha and Timothy Leery both said the same thing though in entirely different ways: "Always question authority and think for yourself."

:Ohno: good lord! I certainly don't want our jury system to operate like that

When you are a juror you should do your duty as you see fit.

Not as I see fit.

 

[Lighthouse77]

Well, laws are good otherwise racists on jurors will do their duty as they see as fit.

 

[Berry]

Well, laws are good otherwise racists on jurors will do their duty as they see as fit.

If non racists had not enforced racist laws that were in effect there might well have never been a need for civil rights marches.

A racist cannot convict unless someone is accused of breaking a law and tried, nor can one or even eleven racist jurors convict anyone of anything they were not accused of. The civil rights movement was necessary because juries continued to convict people of laws they had broken -- Such as riding in the front of the bus.

In my own lifetime I have faced the problem that it was illegal in some places for anyone (Such as myself) with Native American Indian Blood to drink alcohol.

The question is really simple -- If someone broke into stelletosilloet's home in the middle of the night and stelletosilloet shot the burglar and you believe you would have done the same thing to defend your home, your self, and your loved ones -- Would you convict?

 

[Lighthouse77]

Yeah, I wonder what's up with that, about them not allow to drink. I know that in Australia they do the same thing with the Natives.

 

[Lighthouse77]

If non racists had not enforced racist laws that were in effect there might well have never been a need for civil rights marches.

A racist cannot convict unless someone is accused of breaking a law and tried, nor can one or even eleven racist jurors convict anyone of anything they were not accused of. The civil rights movement was necessary because juries continued to convict people of laws they had broken -- Such as riding in the front of the bus.

In my own lifetime I have faced the problem that it was illegal in some places for anyone (Such as myself) with Native American Indian Blood to drink alcohol.

The question is really simple -- If someone broke into stelletosilloet's home in the middle of the night and stelletosilloet shot the burglar and you believe you would have done the same thing to defend your home, your self, and your loved ones -- Would you convict?

Laws can be good and bad. If we think a law is bad, we have to let people know. hence the marches. After that, they make laws that would protect us from discriminating.

 

[Jiro]

When you are a juror you should do your duty as you see fit.

Not as I see fit.

I surely will do my duty with the law as my guide. I will even vote "Not Guilty" for the murderer if the state produced the evidence in unethical manner (or borderline illegal).

 

[Reba]

I surely will do my duty with the law as my guide. I will even vote "Not Guilty" for the murderer if the state produced the evidence in unethical manner (or borderline illegal).

You shouldn't have to worry about that happening. If there is the slimmest chance that the prosecutor's evidence can be thrown out, the defense will pounce on it.

 

[Reba]

...In my own lifetime I have faced the problem that it was illegal in some places for anyone (Such as myself) with Native American Indian Blood to drink alcohol.

Is this what you mean?

...The 1933 appeal of prohibition did not apply to native americans. They continued under prohibition laws until 1953, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower repealed the Indian prohibition laws country-wide. Indian reservations, however, remained dry unless they opted to permit the possession and sale of alcohol on the reservation....

When did native americans get the right to vote and drink alcohol? -Native American Indian Tribes - Over 2,000 articles on native american indians, their culture & traditions.

How old are you?

The question is really simple -- If someone broke into stelletosilloet's home in the middle of the night and stelletosilloet shot the burglar and you believe you would have done the same thing to defend your home, your self, and your loved ones -- Would you convict?

In my state, stelletosilloet wouldn't even be arrested in the first place.

 

[Reba]

If non racists had not enforced racist laws that were in effect there might well have never been a need for civil rights marches.

A racist cannot convict unless someone is accused of breaking a law and tried, nor can one or even eleven racist jurors convict anyone of anything they were not accused of. The civil rights movement was necessary because juries continued to convict people of laws they had broken -- Such as riding in the front of the bus.

Since this is Black History Month, it might be good to review the Rosa Parks story.

An Act of Courage, The Arrest Records of Rosa Parks

On December 1, 1955, during a typical evening rush hour in Montgomery, Alabama, a 42-year-old woman took a seat on the bus on her way home from the Montgomery Fair department store where she worked as a seamstress. Before she reached her destination, she quietly set off a social revolution when the bus driver instructed her to move back, and she refused. Rosa Parks, an African American, was arrested that day for violating a city law requiring racial segregation of public buses.

On the city buses of Montgomery, Alabama, the front 10 seats were permanently reserved for white passengers. The diagram shows that Mrs. Parks was seated in the first row behind those 10 seats. When the bus became crowded, the bus driver instructed Mrs. Parks and the other three passengers seated in that row, all African Americans, to vacate their seats for the white passengers boarding. Eventually, three of the passengers moved, while Mrs. Parks remained seated, arguing that she was not in a seat reserved for whites. Joseph Blake, the driver, believed he had the discretion to move the line separating black and white passengers. The law was actually somewhat murky on that point, but when Mrs. Parks defied his order, he called the police. Officers Day and Mixon came and promptly arrested her.

In police custody, Mrs. Parks was booked, fingerprinted, and briefly incarcerated. The police report shows that she was charged with "refusing to obey orders of bus driver." For openly challenging the racial laws of her city, she remained at great physical risk while held by the police, and her family was terrified for her. When she called home, she spoke to her mother, whose first question was "Did they beat you?"

Mrs. Parks was not the first person to be prosecuted for violating the segregation laws on the city buses in Montgomery. She was, however, a woman of unchallenged character who was held in high esteem by all those who knew her. At the time of her arrest, Mrs. Parks was active in the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), serving as secretary to E.D. Nixon, president of the Montgomery chapter. Her arrest became a rallying point around which the African American community organized a bus boycott in protest of the discrimination they had endured for years. Martin Luther King, Jr., the 26-year-old minister of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, emerged as a leader during the well-coordinated, peaceful boycott that lasted 381 days and captured the world’s attention. It was during the boycott that Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., first achieved national fame as the public became acquainted with his powerful oratory.

After Mrs. Parks was convicted under city law, her lawyer filed a notice of appeal. While her appeal was tied up in the state court of appeals, a panel of three judges in the U.S. District Court for the region ruled in another case that racial segregation of public buses was unconstitutional. That case, called Browder v. Gayle, was decided on June 4, 1956. The ruling was made by a three-judge panel that included Frank M. Johnson, Jr., and upheld by the United States Supreme court on November 13, 1956.

For a quiet act of defiance that resonated throughout the world, Rosa Parks is known and revered as the "Mother of the Civil Rights Movement."

The documents shown here relating to Mrs. Parks’s arrest are copies that were submitted as evidence in the Browder v. Gayle case. They are preserved by the National Archives and Records Administration?Southeast Region in East Point, Georgia, in Record Group 21, Records District Courts of the United States, U.S. District Court for Middle District of Alabama, Northern (Montgomery) Division. Civil Case 1147, Browder, et al v. Gayle, et al.

An Act of Courage, The Arrest Records of Rosa Parks