Originally Posted by G19G20
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.
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
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.
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.
You are truly a dope addled boob, at least I hope your mental limits can be blamed on substance abuse.
"Straw Man"? You are a walking straw man. Your own words show how discnnected from reality you are.
directly above, you say,
"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."
Yet the source you cited yourself, in an attempted to BS your way int some gravitas, clearly says, and I will repeat it again for your edification,
"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."
Again that come from your own citation.
If it were up to A
jury to decide on the suitablility of a laws existence, as you claim thusly,
"a jury to decide whether a law is fair or should exist in the first place"
Then the Founding Father's went to a heck of a lot of trouble to design the Supreme Court when their real intention was that the legislature, or any law making body, or the people by initiative petition, should be overruled by 12 people selected at random.
As to your frequent misstating of my words, I never said I didn't know of a case that was decided by jury nullification. But rare is the law itself that is changed by one nullification, and as rare, a masss of nullifications that cause reconsideration of the law.