That is a morally revolting prospect, but judges today who reject nullification must confess that they would enforce the fugitive slave laws and convict Harriet Tubman. If they were to honestly admit as much, and hold themselves powerless to disobey unjust and morally despicable laws, they should be told that "obeying orders" was not accepted as a defense in the nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg. It is tempting to say that today we don't have laws like the "fugitive slave laws." That would be a serious self-deception. The prisons are full of people who have done nothing wrong, except be in possession of a "controlled substance" that the federal government, at least, has no authority under the constitution to "control." people dying of cancer or aids have been arrested and jailed just. Despite the passage of medical marijuana laws in many states, as far apart as California and maine, federal prosecutors have viciously targeted medical mairjuana activists, who are often very ill themselves, and have found pliant judges, without honor or conscience, who prohibit medical necessity defenses. But must we simply accept such possible injustices in order to uphold the rule of law? By allowing jury nullification, do we not license the misuse of the principle, as when southern white juries would acquit kkk'ers for murdering or terrorizing blacks or Jews?
Bill of Rights, bill of Rights, institute
It is common today for judges to tell prospective jurors that they must apply the law as he gives it to them and that their business is simply to determine whether the defendant has broken the law or not. But that is not what was intended by the right to trial by jury in the bill or Rights. Thomas Jefferson said in 1782 ( Notes on Virginia. It is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. Then, recommending trial by jury to the French in 1789, jefferson wrote to tom paine, "i ial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." One may say that. On the other hand, we have the district resume of Columbia circuit court of Appeals, in United States. Dougherty, 1972, saying: The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial e pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the. Indeed, if juries do not have the right and power to nullify the law, we must face the fact that Harriet Tubman, one of the great heroines of American history, would and should have been guilty of multiple federal crimes by violating the fugitive slave.
Instead, jurors simply said that they accepted the defense argument that police carelessness and possible misconduct, motivated by racism, introduced an element of reasonable doubt against english the prosecution's case. Since judge Ito allowed the defense to make that argument (judges typically do not allow defense lawyers to make pleas for nullification it certainly doesn't look like a nullification case. The jury may have been more suspicious of the police than was reasonable, but that was the luck of the draw in the jury pool - a jury in Santa monica later found. Liable for the murder, under the less rigorous standard of "preponderance of the evidence rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt in the civil case against him. On the other hand, does a jury have the power and the right to nullify the law? Would nullification be a violation of the principle of the rule of law? Yes, and no, respectively.
Learned Hand (1872-1961) Not long after the end of buy the original. Simpson trial, i got in a little argument in the mail room with one of my colleagues at Los Angeles Valley college, farrell Broslawsky, who teaches history and political science. He said that the. Verdict was an example of "jury nullification" and that the whole idea of jury nullification was a violation of the rule of law. Since then, i have seen the same argument made elsewhere, and I think it is important to address. "Jury nullification" means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. Jurors expressed or implied opposition to the laws against murder, their verdict was certainly not an example of nullification in that sense. Nor did any jurors admit that they were persuaded. J.'s guilt but that they thought it was ok for him to have committed the murders anyway.
Leszek ko akowski (1927-2009 "Crime and Punishment Is God Happy? Selected Essays Basic books, 2013,.236 I told him that a lawyer one time told me that in law school they try and teach you not to worry about right and wrong but just follow the law and I said I wasnt so sure about. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell cormac McCarthy, no country for Old Men, vintage, 2005,.298 It's every man's business to see justice done. Sherlock holmes sir Arthur Conan doyle, "The Crooked Man memories of Sherlock holmes, 1892 An unjust law is no law at all. To put it in the terms of saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Martin Luther King,., "Letter from a birmingham jail 1963. Do justice, sir, do justice.
Bria 20 2 c Hobbes, locke, montesquieu, and rousseau
Well, if they had known anything about the parser laws, and admitted it in the voir dire, they would have been kicked off the jury. The tyrants of our day want ignorant jurors, not informed ones, even in matter that should be common knowledge among all citizens. Socrates : If you had no clear knowledge of piety and impiety you would never have ventured to prosecute your old father for murder on behalf of a servant. For fear of the gods you would have been afraid to take the risk lest you should not be acting rightly, and would have been ashamed before men. Plato, euthyphro, 15d, translated. Grube hackett Publishing, 1981,.22; Greek text, Plato - euthryphro, apology, crito, essay phaedo, phaedrus, loeb Classical Library, harvard,.58-59 socrates : Men of Athens, i am grateful and i am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you.
Do not deem it right for me, men of Athens, that I should act towards you in a way that I do not consider to be good or just or pious, especially, by zeus, as i am being prosecuted by meletus here for impiety. Clearly, if I convinced you by my supplication to do violence to your oath of office, i would be teaching you not to believe that there are gods, and my defense would convict me of not believing in them. This is far from being the case, men of Athens, for I do believe nomízô in them as none oudeìs of my accusers do; and I leave it to you and the god to judge me in the way that will be best for. Plato, the Apology, 29d, 35c-d, translated. Grube with alterations Hackett Publishing, 1981,.34, 39; Greek text, Plato - euthryphro, apology, crito, phaedo, phaedrus, loeb Classical Library, harvard,.108-109, 126-127 no, we can neither expect nor demand respect for the law just because it has been promulgated, regardless of its content. What matters is not respect for this or that (often accidental) decision of the majority in a parliament or of a judge. Rather, what matters is respect for the moral law, which may or may not coincide with the positive law and which involves the legally irrelevant distinction between good and evil.
Two are still in jail. "Rough Justice the Economist, july 24th-30th, 2010,.13. A case where no criminal mens rea was involved. Yet Superior court Judge james Morley wouldn't allow Brian Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren't comfortable convicting Aitkens. The judge refused to answer all three times.
"Brian Aitken's Mistake, an outrageous gun prosectuion in New Jersey radley bako, reason, march 2011,.61. Brian Aitken was convicted of a felony for lawfully transporting his guns between residences because judge morley, in a clear case of judical misconduct, refused to instruct the jury on the relevant law. New Jersey governor Chris Christie commuted Aitken's sentence and declined to reappoint Morley to the bench. Aitken, however, will have a felony conviction on his record until the verdict is overturned. The jurors should have asked themselves whether. Aitken had done anything wrong. But how can they all have been so ignorant of the conditions of the lawful possession, use, and transportation of firearms?
Hillary Clinton doesnt Deserve the, black vote
He was arrested in 1997, prosecuted, and convicted, with a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years, despite the absence resume of evidence that he had ever used his medication for other than lawful and medically necessary purposes. In 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the lacey act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece.
I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the fugitive slave act by assisting a runaway slave, i would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, i was dismissed from jury duty. Walter Williams, richard paey is a florida man who was incarcerated in 2004 for drug trafficking. There was no evidence he ever distributed or intended to sell any pills, but early drug laws in many states, including Florida, allow officials to prosecute for trafficking based solely on the quantity an individual possesses. Paey spent three and a half years in prison, until he was granted a full pardon by Florida governor Charlie crist in September 2007. Later, Dwayne hillis, one of the jurors in the trial, came forward publicly and said he was pressured into a guilty verdict with assurances that Richard paey would serve no jail term. Wikipedia - paey was a paraplegic as the result of an automobile accident, in constant pain, using large quantifies of prescription pain killers.
laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of law. Calvin coolidge, to the massachusetts State senate, january 7, 1914, i was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself.
The canadian charter of rights and freedoms clearly states: every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to buy the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic. Our freedoms include the freedoms of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of association, and peaceful ter reading my textbook, i learned that in the year of 2001, four women and 5 labour unions from Ontario decided to launch a charter challenge that argued. Jury nullification and the rule of Law. Romans 2:14 For when gentiles who have not the law do by nature what is of the law, even though they do not have the law, they are a law to themselves. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts. Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind. Edward Gibbon 'If Miss Tuttle's broken the law, the jury are entitled to acquit her!
Bill, pronzini and Lynn Munroe
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says you can be equal and different at the same time. Thats the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: to protect your freedoms and to protect who you are your place in this great nation. It says we can be different from one another, and that we are all first-class citizens too. As a canadian Citizen, i feel very lucky that there is something like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to affirm and enhance my identity. The Charter allows me nurse to have freedoms, and rights to protect me from things like discrimination, and abrupt searches without reason backed by evidence, etc. Thinking as a group instead of an individual, the canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enhances our identities as Canadians because we are able to be whom we are and be sure that we are safe to do so in our country, choose how and. All Canadian citizens living in Canada all have individual rights and freedoms. These freedoms and rights ensure that we are all treated the same and gives citizens the freedom to be who we want to be, while feeling safe to. More specifically, we are able to be who want to be because we have fundamental freedoms, and we are able to feel safe while doing so because we have equality rights.