View Single Post
Old 10-09-2012, 07:11   #290
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
You are truly a disengenuous weasle in my opinion.
My apologies for exposing the mountains of bull **** you post. Unfortunately I have more of a life than to follow the thousands of uninformed posts per month you generate.

Quote:
You can't even be honest about what you cite. I knew you were wrong and figure maybe you misread a complicated citation, but actually, there it was, the very second paragraph in your cited source. i guess the dope gives you a short attention span.

Tell you what, I'll higlight the parts you missed to give you a little help.


"A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."

To spell it out for you, it isn't intended to allow 12 randomly selected individuals to decide whether or not a particular law is Constitutional or not. It is intended to protect a defendent in a case where the law is misapplied or doesn't fit the circumstances of the case before it. Now if it happens repeatedly it may affect the standing of the law. I know of no examples of this.
You don't know of any examples? Im shocked!

Here's an example from last month. Enjoy. New Hampshire just made the principle of jury nullification a statutory law for 2013, btw.

NH jury acquits rastafarian pot grower
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/ne...-pot-growing-r

Quote:
A jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old Rastafarian charged with marijuana cultivation, after his lawyer, Mark Sisti, argued that a conviction would be unjust in light of the fact that Darrell was growing cannabis for his own religious and medicinal use. More remarkably, Judge James O'Neill instructed the jury that "even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case."


Sometimes I don't think you even know what you're arguing for or against. Just arguing just to argue, even when you have no clue what the subject matter is.

Quote:
Given that there are people who will agree with the law on a jury and it akes a unanamous jury to conclude nullification, it is not some "undiscovered panacea for legalization" that you pretend it is.
Who said anything about a panacea for legalization? Your entire quoted post is a giant strawman argument and an uninformed and disjointed argument at that. Jury nullification allows a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place, regardless of the criminal facts alleged. Only legislators and judges can repeal laws. This is common knowledge. You're arguing against a statement that no one actually made.

Last edited by G19G20; 10-09-2012 at 07:12..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote