A quad of comments and a trio of questions

[Occulus]

In our society, we convict people for crimes agaist the public and/or society as a whole. Murder, rape, kidnaping, theft, recklessness; these things and others are treated as crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes are, if caught, punished.

Additionally, we have, under our Constitution, the right to a trial by jury. Evidence is presented, arguments are made, and, nominally, the jury reaches a decision based upon the facts presented. When the jury reaches a verdict, it presents its decision in open court.

Certain crimes have a high rate of recidivism, and in addition new criminals guilty of those crimes appear each and every day. Yet we do not allow society, in the form of a jury of peers, to tell the guilty why they are considered criminals. We do not allow the people, as an empowered group, to vocally confront those who offend it.

We simply put them in the system and lock them up.

Should each member of a jury be able to deliver their reasons why or why not the guilty are guilty, or why the innocent are innocent?

Should we be able to tell criminals and reinforce to the public why crimes are crimes?

Should juries be required to do so?

[RoeBear]

1. I don't get it...

...sorry.

[Zister]

2. They Speak as one

dude, its simple.

If based on the totality of the evidence there is reasonable doubt(Not Guilty)

If based on the totality of the evidence there is no reasonable doubt(Guilty)

And NO the jurors should not have to explain anything outside the jury room. They speak as one voice.

[Jack_DeLeon]

3. Problems with the way our jury system is.

I dont really like the way that our jury trials are set up.

If it were up to me I would have it so that the Jury can participate more fully.

Instead of just having the defense attorney or prosecutor asking witnesses questions I would have the jury be able to ask questions aswell.

Also the jury should be informed of the possible punishments for the various crimes they are going to find people guity of.

I've heard of cases where jury members will have remorse over finding someone guilty because of the harsh prison sentance. Like if they could do it over again and they would rather let the person walk free than to be setanced the way they were.

[gatlingforme]

4. The jury has the right to state their opinions (unless otherwise

noted) after the verdict is read and they have done their duty and walk out the courtroom. Certain crimes carry more recidivism - yeah like drugs, theft, etc... these crimes are congruous with the the criminals lack of education and their financial instability. I.e. they come from the poorest neighborhoods. the question is when criminals are locked up how much does society owe them to try and rehabilitate them before they experience their (here's a pop culture term) RE-ENTRY into society? Or does society have the obligation to try and promote better education and foster a better neighborhood environment before it reaches the point the perp's potential to do crime> ? I like the latter one myself.
As far as juries participating (asking questions etc..)in a courtroom setting while the trial is on - I disagree. The juries are to render a verdict based on evidence presented to them. The officers of the court i.e. prosecutors, defence attorneys have the obligation to present their side with evidence available. And if they do not do this in the proper manner (ethics, official misconduct) then they are held responsible. (ARDC..., etc) The juries do not have this obligation. This is just my opinion.

[Dayton]

5. I agree with most

first, I paraphrase a quote "The American system of justice is an ugly inefficient cumbersome system. Its just better than anything yet invented"

No, the jury members should not ask questions during a trial. I have had my fill if ill informed pin heads asking irrelevant questions at staff meetings to know this is a disaster.

The assumption that financial status and education are a predictor of the proclivity to crime is totally false. A cursory look at New York City during the depression totally dis proves this theory. More people that today and less crime.

[gatlingforme]

7. Maybe I should have been more specific. As I see it

in the court system, money talks and BS walks..... so to speak. Many people that do not have the education and financial resources will not have the range of defense attorneys to chose from , they must go with Public Defenders, (that is just the start), The county public defense attorney is established from a vote from the judges in that county. (?) right? -- (depends on population of that county, mine is small, thus that is what it is, depending on the number of people in the county, you can also have this seat as an elected seat. )

Also, just look at who is in the pen. compare that to their socio-economic standing and what do you have?

I never said that socio economic conditions are a predictor of the proclivity to crime. Might as well say that if your are African American then do some time now , before you have to later. NOT. I am saying it's disadvantageous for those that are in that predicament. The court system cuddles the money, not the person.

There is no such thing as an irrelevant question -- unless you know everything ?
edited spelling

[Dayton]

10. I do not dispute that money buys a better defense

but I have struggled with this for many years. I can not come up with a correction that does not trample on our rights. I am willing to listen, but I see no other system in place that works better. (see my above post)

No such thing as an irrelevant question? So, due to your shoe size why do you deem yourself able enough to post a question?

[gatlingforme]

13. huh? I do not understand your last sentence. who am I to ask a

question? what is your point please say it so I can respond.

[John BigBootay]

6. I personally find the present jury system to be flawed--

I have sat through several jury selections and never been called to serve. It has wasted my time and the time of many others. The people that they wind up getting to serve (from my experiences) were those who desired to serve and therefore would say anything to get on the jury. Those that wanted off the jury would say anything to get off. A certain few hapless souls wanted NOT to serve, but could not muster the right "tales" to get oustered by either prosecution or defense. Finally, those that are eventually selected, bless their hearts, are not really "qualified" to serve. To put a point on it, I believe many lack the critical thinking skills that would be a benefit to the role.

I would like to entertain the idea of a professional jury pool. A pool of people that are either on-call or full-time that have passed a series of "fairness" tests and "critical thinking" tests and are certified by a by-partisan panel of prosecutors and defense attorneys.

This would save the time of us civillians from having to be forced to appear for an excersize which will be ultimately futile-- and will quite possibly create more reasoned verdicts. It could also save the state money by not having to pay for jury selections.

[gatlingforme]

8. Your thinking is elitist, to say the common "folk" can't ascertain a

concept nor decipher the evidence is inexcusable. I quote you :


I would like to entertain the idea of a professional jury pool. A pool of people that are either on-call or full-time that have passed a series of "fairness" tests and "critical thinking" tests and are certified by a by-partisan panel of prosecutors and defense attorneys.

you forgot to state that the constitution says otherwise, i.e. a jury of your peers. I would like to entertain that we are all non-partisan, fair, intelligent, not prejudice, have lots of money and can reason.

"fairness tests and critical thinking tests" humm, and who would make these tests ???? hopefully someone I would entertain. LOL And what is a "by-partisan panel of prosecutors and defense attorneys." I have never heard of that HAHAHA> the court system is political .
HEE HEE, I like that, when you find a panel like that let me know. LOL

is this sarcasm on your part?? I do not know, but by-partisan? COME-ON?

[John BigBootay]

16. My ideas are often unloved.

But they are usually right.

My error for using "by-partisan" however. I meant that the panel would consist of equal measures prosecutors and defenders.

The Constitution says NOTHING about your "peers" not being PAID PROFESSIONALS.

We must administer extremely challenging tests for a variety of endeavors-- to practice medicine, law, engineering, architecture, hair and nails in several states.. Why not admister a test to ascertain the quality of your MIND? Your ability to be fair? Your motives for seeking to sit on the jury. Your ability to recognize facts and connect dots?

You accuse me of elitism-- You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I want the best and expect the best. Sue me.

[gatlingforme]

19. Your opinion is noted oh mighty one. LOL enlightened huh?

[iverglas]

9. that is the function of sentencing --

*not* of trying and convicting. Verdicts are, and must be, based on the facts and law alone, and not on anyone's opinion of the accused or what s/he did.

"Denunciation" -- expression of society's disapprobation of certain conducts -- is historically one of the functions of sentencing.

Actually, I have to qualify that. It is a purpose of sentencing in Canada, and I believe in NZ, Australia, the UK -- but not, last time I looked, in the US. This has always struck me as odd.

Anyhow. The function of the evidentiary portion of a trial -- up to when a verdict of guilty or not guilty is rendered -- is to determine whether the person did what s/he is charged with doing (and if so, whether s/he has a defence or excuse or justification for doing it: insanity, necessity, self-defence, etc.). The issue isn't "how wrong" it was to do what s/he did; it is whether s/he did it.

To mix "wrongness" up into that process would be quite a violation of various rights.

That is,

Should each member of a jury be able to deliver their reasons why or why not the guilty are guilty, or why the innocent are innocent?

People are found guilty because they are determined, based on sufficient evidence, to have done what they were alleged to have done; people are found not guilty (never "innocent") because it is determined that there is insufficient evidence that they did what they were alleged to have done.

No other reason is proper, or could be permitted. ... Although I have to admit that your suggestion might be an incentive for jurors to actually follow that rule, and *not* make their decisions for other reasons. ;)

The reasons why the law is what it is are outside the jury's purview. They are required only to judge the facts before them and determine whether they are covered by the law. When they decide cases on the evidence, they are acting as part of the judicial branch of government, not as part of the legislative branch (e.g. as voters). The roles do have to be kept separate, in the interests of fair trials and all that.

Should we be able to tell criminals and reinforce to the public why crimes are crimes?

It is properly the role of the judge to tell a convicted criminal why s/he is being sentenced as s/he is, which normally includes an explanation of the harm that his/her specific acts caused.

But again, it is not the role of any part of the criminal justice system to speak to the "why" of a criminal law itself. That is the legislature's function, and a court (whether judge or jury) would be overstepping its role to do that, other than perhaps incidentally in a judge's explanation of a sentence, e.g. "society considers your crime to be serious", which the judge actually deduces from the law itself.

By the bye, in Canada, jurors are forbidden to discuss their deliberations with anyone at all. Their job is to determine whether the evidence presented supported a finding of guilty, and that's the extent of it. Permitting them to discuss their reasons publicly would open the door to jurors feeling the need to justify their decisions in the media, for instance, and feeling pressure to make not just legally correct decisions, but popular decisions.

Of course, we also don't elect judges ... ;)

[Dayton]

11. Canada might be different

"The reasons why the law is what it is are outside the jury's purview. They are required only to judge the facts before them and determine whether they are covered by the law. When they decide cases on the evidence, they are acting as part of the judicial branch of government, not as part of the legislative branch (e.g. as voters). The roles do have to be kept separate, in the interests of fair trials and all that."

That is most likely an unintended misstatement by you, as far as the United States go.

The jury can deliberate concerning the facts/law. This is in fact the purpose of the Jury. Deciding the facts is easy and a jury would not be required. Melding the law and the facts is what a jury of your peers is all about. That is one of the things that assures the clean transition of power that works so well in the USA.

You could look at the repeal of Prohibition as an example. Juries simply refused to convict their peers for a law they found wrong.
The facts were not in dispute, but the law was

[gatlingforme]

12. I agree with you, we also have denunciation at sentencing too,

as previous post stated, but that has nothing to do with actual trial and that is part of the victim rights to confront the guilty, personally I do not believe in this either.

[iverglas]

14. hmm, I think that's what I said

me: They are required only to judge the facts before them and determine whether they are covered by the law.

you: The jury can deliberate concerning the facts/law. This is in fact the purpose of the Jury. Deciding the facts is easy and a jury would not be required. Melding the law and the facts is what a jury of your peers is all about.

I'm not seeing a difference. The jury applies the law to the facts. I think we're both saying this. Amazingly, I just said it in fewer words.

The jury

(a) makes findings as to what the facts are (did the accused hit that little old person over the head with his/her shoe? did the accused do that with the intent of killing, or robbing, or seriously injuring, the victim?)

(b) determines whether the facts, as so found, constitute the offence alleged (is hitting someone over the head with a shoe and taking back one's wallet, which that person had pickpocketed, robbery or just assault?)

The jury is actually very carefully instructed, by the judge, in the applicable law, i.e. as to when it may say that the facts it finds constitute the offence alleged.

The reasons why the law is the law are still outside its purview. If it chooses to make its decisions based on considerations of that nature -- i.e. to decide based on its opinion that there are no good reasons for the law -- there isn't much anybody can do about it. But that's no reason to encourage juries to do that, or allow such decisions to stand unchallenged.


That is one of the things that assures the clean transition of power that works so well in the USA.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at ... but I'm sure you're aware that the US did not invent the concept of trial by jury, as we both understand it.


You could look at the repeal of Prohibition as an example. Juries simply refused to convict their peers for a law they found wrong.
The facts were not in dispute, but the law was

Yup, and juries in Quebec repeatedly refused to convict Dr. Henry Morgentaler for violating the Criminal Code provisions governing abortion. But in neither instance was the law actually "in dispute" in the cases in question; the juries just decided not to apply it to the facts.

Ultimately, however, in Morgentaler's case, after the acquittals were reversed on appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the reversals, because the law under which the accused had been convicted on appeal was an unjustified violation of constitutional rights.

Now me, I'd rather have the Supreme Court of Canada making that determination than a jury of usually unsophisticated, and often prejudiced, ordinary folks. What if those particular 12 people had all been anti-choice or anti-semites -- the law would still have been unconstitutional, they would have applied it, and denying the accused an appeal from the jury's verdict, i.e. imposing on him the penalties provided by an unconstitutional law, would have violated his constitutional rights.

If a law is bad law, i.e. unconstitutional, let's get a proper ruling, by the proper authority, with a proper explanation. That way the decision can be readily understood by everyone (as compared to everyone guessing at what a jury's reasons were, and not being able to evaluate them). And that way the decision carries legitimacy and authority (as compared to being the who-knows-why decision of 12 people who do not have the authority to make such decisions about laws).

If a law is not unconstitutional, but still "bad" for social policy reasons, then it should be changed -- again, by the body that has the authority to do that: the legislature. A legislature that won't change bad laws can be voted out and replaced with one that will. And again, that, to my mind, will result in a far more legitimate decision than any decision by 12 unelected individuals.

So we look at things differently. I regard jury nullification (as I think you call it down there) as inherently anti-democratic. I want my laws made by the people I elect to make them, not by whoever walks into a courtroom in response to a notice to appear on any given day; and I want them interpreted and applied by the people who are appointed to do that, in a transparent process, by the people I elect (in the case of Canada), and who have the skills to do it, and whose doing of it is also transparent.

But then, this would be just one more manifestation of that silly idea that we really are all responsible for the governments we have, and really oughta all take responsibility for what they are and do.

I don't mean to be snide, really, but if a people does that -- pays attention, and participates in the electoral process in a meaningful way -- then that people just doesn't need to be constantly asserting and exercising some right to smack its government down. And if the government does happen to need smacking down (they're all going to at some point, particularly when it comes to minority rights), I want it done properly and enforceably, and not have the enforcement of its bad laws left to the whim of a few of my fellow citizens.

[Dayton]

15. Tally Ho

I just dont know where to start

If a law is not unconstitutional, but still "bad" for social policy reasons, then it should be changed -- again, by the body that has the authority to do that: the legislature. A legislature that won't change bad laws can be voted out and replaced with one that will. And again, that, to my mind, will result in a far more legitimate decision than any decision by 12 unelected individuals.

I have seen this argument presented by iverglass before, except that the courts were the final abitors, not elected officials..ie gay marriage, where the courts stepped in and declared law in place for more than two hundred years was not constitutional.

So? The courts or the legislature?

"I'm not seeing a difference. The jury applies the law to the facts. I think we're both saying this. Amazingly, I just said it in fewer words."

NO the jury has the ability to declare the law non applicible. As in my previous example. The jury decided that the duly enacted law was bogus and stopped convicting people for violations


"If a law is not unconstitutional, but still "bad" for social policy reasons, then it should be changed -- again, by the body that has the authority to do that: the legislature. A legislature that won't change bad laws can be voted out and replaced with one that will. And again, that, to my mind, will result in a far more legitimate decision than any decision by 12 unelected individuals."

This suits me just fine if we apply to all situations

[iverglas]

17. eh???

"I just dont know where to start"

Well, perhaps you should have thought that out a little more carefully, friend.

"I have seen this argument presented by iverglass before, except that the courts were the final abitors, not elected officials..ie gay marriage, ..."

And yet ... and yet ... you've only been here 5 days. And from memory, I'd say it's been weeks since I've had anything to say about the subject you evoke: "gay marriage".

Perhaps you're thinking of here? -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=6534
-- except that thread's from February, and that's on, like, page 18 of 20 in the Civil Rights forum. Oh well. It's a mystery. Onward and upward.

"I have seen this argument presented by iverglass before, except that the courts were the final abitors, not elected officials..ie gay marriage, where the courts stepped in and declared law in place for more than two hundred years was not constitutional."

Yeah, and isn't it amazing that I just said exactly the same thing in the post you're responding to? Here ya go; it was the bit right before the bit you quoted (I'll add some caps so you can follow the thought):

If a law is bad law, i.e. UNCONSTITUTIONAL, let's get a proper ruling, by the proper authority, with a proper explanation. <Obviously I was referring to a court with the authority to interpret and apply the constitution.>

Now, you see there in the bit you did quote --

If a law is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but still "bad" for social policy reasons, then it should be changed -- again, by the body that has the authority to do that: the legislature.

-- where I said "NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL"?

Shall I spell it out?

If a law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then a proper constitutional court can strike it down.

If a law is "bad" but NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then a court canNOT strike it down, and it is up to the legislature to change it. (Or just stop enforcing it, if that's an option; it's not a good one.) If the people want it changed, and if what the people wants is not unconstitutional ...

So? Are you still wanting to ask:

So? The courts or the legislature?

? I can try to explain it in shorter words, if you like.


NO the jury has the ability to declare the law non applicible. As in my previous example. The jury decided that the duly enacted law was bogus and stopped convicting people for violations

Sez you.

A jury could just as well decide that refusing to convict people was a lot more profitable than convicting them, regardless of what the law said, if the people up for conviction happened to be paying better than the public. Like that has never happened. And there was certainly enough money floating around in those cases to have made it happen, should there have been a willing buyer and a willing seller of "justice" present.

And how on earth would you ever know?

And why on earth would *I* want the opinion of 12 people who were most likely (as has already been said) either

(a) eager to serve on a jury for reasons of their own, possibly having to do with their distaste for the law in general, or

(b) reluctant to serve on a jury but unable to evade the duty

-- and who were possibly even corrupt in the most gross sense of the concept -- to be the determining decision about the laws that will govern *moi*?? Where's *my* vote in all this??

So, my assertion that it is better to have bad but not unconstitutional laws changed by elected, representative legislatures than by unelected, unrepresentative groups of 12 people "suits <you> just fine if we apply to all situations"? If only I knew what that was meant to mean, I'd know whether that would suit me just fine too.

Oh, oh. I get it. You want to apply what I said about "bad" but NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws to bad/UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. Sorry; that wouldn't suit me fine at all.

I may have asked you this before sometime, but: what exactly do you imagine that constitutions are for?

[cedarriver]

20. Could I jump in?

Sez you.

A jury could just as well decide that refusing to convict people was a lot more profitable than convicting them, regardless of what the law said, if the people up for conviction happened to be paying better than the public. Like that has never happened. And there was certainly enough money floating around in those cases to have made it happen, should there have been a willing buyer and a willing seller of "justice" present.

Its a nice theory, if you had any proof that in the 100's of thousands of jury trials that take place across the USA, it actually happens. I have served on juries and you implication that I was bought by the highest bidder would be despicable, if it had any basis if fact.

And you avoided the fact, that the reason prohibition was repealed in part, was because juries stopped convicting people for violating the Constitution. A judge or judges did not eliminate the part of the constitution that concerned the possession or selling of alcohol. If I remember my history correctly a judge did not declare the prohibition of alcohol unconstitutional, juries simply stopped convicting people of a Law that the people found wrong. This was not one jury decision but hundreds, that the politicians finally figured out that the constitution had to be changed

If a law is "bad" but NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then a court canNOT strike it down, and it is up to the legislature to change it. (Or just stop enforcing it, if that's an option; it's not a good one.) If the people want it changed, and if what the people wants is not unconstitutional ...

And an agreement is struck! The courts do not have the option to declare laws void and should not twist things to suit their personal agendas. However, juries can as a fact, throw out the law and convict, or acquit as is appropriate for the situation.

The reason for the jury is two fold

1. determine facts

2. apply the facts to the specific situation and convict or acquit regardless of applicable laws

A useful example might be the USA Military courts. Those courts do what you advocate. Determine the facts, apply the appropriate military code of conduct. They are not allowed to judge the rules.

I don't hold my neighbors in the same contempt you hold your neighbors
I am most willing to let them decide my fate, much more so than some judge that has spent his last 40 years learning the law and have that perverted slant dumped on me.

A quote comes to mind here I an just going to give the jist not precise quote

'I would much rather be governed by the 1st 100 names in the Boston phone book, than the faculty at Yale'

[iverglas]

21. alrighty now

First, let's attempt to make your post coherent by inserting some html tags so I can tell what you're on about. Then I'll reply.

________________________________-

"Could I jump in?"
Posted by cedarriver

Sez you.

A jury could just as well decide that refusing to convict people was a lot more profitable than convicting them, regardless of what the law said, if the people up for conviction happened to be paying better than the public. Like that has never happened. And there was certainly enough money floating around in those cases to have made it happen, should there have been a willing buyer and a willing seller of "justice" present.

Its a nice theory, if you had any proof that in the 100's of thousands of jury trials that take place across the USA, it actually happens. I have served on juries and you implication that I was bought by the highest bidder would be despicable, if it had any basis if fact.

And you avoided the fact, that the reason prohibition was repealed in part, was because juries stopped convicting people for violating the Constitution. A judge or judges did not eliminate the part of the constitution that concerned the possession or selling of alcohol. If I remember my history correctly a judge did not declare the prohibition of alcohol unconstitutional, juries simply stopped convicting people of a Law that the people found wrong. This was not one jury decision but hundreds, that the politicians finally figured out that the constitution had to be changed

If a law is "bad" but NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then a court canNOT strike it down, and it is up to the legislature to change it. (Or just stop enforcing it, if that's an option; it's not a good one.) If the people want it changed, and if what the people wants is not unconstitutional ...

And an agreement is struck! The courts do not have the option to declare laws void and should not twist things to suit their personal agendas. However, juries can as a fact, throw out the law and convict, or acquit as is appropriate for the situation.

The reason for the jury is two fold

1. determine facts

2. apply the facts to the specific situation and convict or acquit regardless of applicable laws

A useful example might be the USA Military courts. Those courts do what you advocate. Determine the facts, apply the appropriate military code of conduct. They are not allowed to judge the rules.

I don't hold my neighbors in the same contempt you hold your neighbors I am most willing to let them decide my fate, much more so than some judge that has spent his last 40 years learning the law and have that perverted slant dumped on me.

A quote comes to mind here I an just going to give the jist not precise quote

'I would much rather be governed by the 1st 100 names in the Boston phone book, than the faculty at Yale'

[iverglas]

22. and alrighty then

Oh, heh. You're "cedar river", not "ced arriver". (I once got an email from someone whose email address was, shall we say, "bobmclean@hotmail", and I thought "Hmm, Bob M. Clean, that's an odd one".) I mean, that's who you are, right?

So. Let's start with the easy stuff.

The reason for the jury is two fold
1. determine facts
2. apply the facts to the specific situation and convict or acquit regardless of applicable laws

Can we make this the last time we go over this one?

Yes indeed. Oh -- no, I see, you've thrown an apple in with them oranges.

A jury determines facts; check. A jury applies ... what's this? Applies the facts to the specific situation? Wot the hell is *that* supposed to mean?? The facts *are* the specific situation. You wanna go back and try it again?

You guys do just make this stuff up as you go along, doncha? Wishful thinking really is not fact.

Here's a fairly authoritative looking thingy: http://www.ribar.com/public/jury.asp

A criminal case is a prosecution brought in the name of the state on behalf of all citizens to try an accused person charged with having committed a crime against the peace and dignity of the entire community. In a criminal case, the state is the "prosecutor" and is represented by an Assistant or Special Assistant Attorney General; the person accused of the crime is the "defendant." Under the Rhode Island constitution, a defendant is entitled to a trial by a jury of 12 people. The function of the jury is to determine whether the state has introduced sufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty.

That's it in a nutshell.

Do you really have a clue what you're saying? Let's look at it again:

2. apply the facts to the specific situation and convict or acquit regardless of applicable laws

Do you grasp the fact that you have just said that a jury could CONVICT someone REGARDLESS of what the law is?? And do you folks not see that this is in fact the necessary corollary to what you're saying anyway -- that if a jury may ACQUIT someone regardless of what the law says, it may also CONVICT someone regardless of what the law says??

A useful example might be the USA Military courts. Those courts do what you advocate. Determine the facts, apply the appropriate military code of conduct. They are not allowed to judge the rules.

Okay. The same applies to some statutory administrative tribunals which do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, in Canada.

But that really has nothing to do with the division between the functions of judge and jury (where there is a jury). The jury is the trier of fact, the judge is the trier of law. Really basic principle of criminal justice, that one.

The jury decides what facts have been sufficiently proved. The jury really is not assigned the function of deciding whether those facts satisfy the requirements for any particular offence. The jury is instructed -- "charged" -- by the judge in that respect. The jury is told what facts it must find to be true before it convicts, and what facts, if found to be true, must lead to conviction.

If this division of functions did not exist, why would anybody ever bother instructing a jury? Just turn 'em loose in the back room with lunch and let 'em duke it out, based on whatever personal knowledge, prejudices or agendas they happened to have, if that was their wont.


I don't hold my neighbors in the same contempt you hold your neighbors I am most willing to let them decide my fate, much more so than some judge that has spent his last 40 years learning the law and have that perverted slant dumped on me.

Such a dog's breakfast.

I'm the one who said I WANTED my neighbours to do the deciding, about matters of social policy and not constitutional rights, of course.

When it comes to constitutional rights, me and my neighbours HAVE ALREADY DECIDED. We've made a pact, and part of that pact is that we can't go back on it at a whim.

But when it comes to law that is just bad social policy, I want ALL my neighbours, all however many million of them are qualified to do that by voting in elections, making the decision to get rid of it -- not 12 of them whom we've never met and never delegated to do that job for me and the rest of my neighbours. Damned if I can figure out why anybody would want that.

Moving along.

Its a nice theory, if you had any proof that in the 100's of thousands of jury trials that take place across the USA, it <jury corruption> actually happens. I have served on juries and you implication that I was bought by the highest bidder would be despicable, if it had any basis <in> fact.

Well, I didn't see any proof of your theory happening, either -- that "jurors refuse to apply bad law" business. All we know is that, in cases in which the prosecution had evidently discharged its burden of proof, the jury refused to convict. We can never know why.

For you to demand proof of jury corruption is straining at the limits of disingenuousness.

For you to state that I implied that you were bought by the highest bidder when serving on a jury goes well beyond disingenousness and lands squarely on the plain of falsehood. (And btw, wouldn't it be more despicable if it had *no* basis in fact??)

And you avoided the fact, that the reason prohibition was repealed in part, was because juries stopped convicting people for violating the Constitution. A judge or judges did not eliminate the part of the constitution that concerned the possession or selling of alcohol.

Actually, it would seem more accurate to me to say that the reason prohibition was repealed was because the relevant governments enacting the repealing legislation, or constitutional amendment, or whatever the hell it was. I'm sure those govts had their reasons, one of which might well have been the impossibility of getting convictions. But the law itself wasn't gone until the govts responsible for repealing it repealed it. The juries could have refused to apply it until they were blue in the face, and it would still have been law.

Now the little hitch here -- and let's remember that *I* was never talking about the US's prohibition because I really just have nothing much to say about idiocy other than that it's idiocy -- is that the law in question was in fact part of the US Constitution. USAmericans treat their constitution very cavalierly, as far as I can tell, and have a habit of stuffing it up with loose bits of crud that have no business being in a constitution, and that result in the constitution being internally contradictory and essentially a dead duck. (You know, like a constitution that guarantees "equal protection of the law" and then prohibits states from enacting legislation to give same-sex couples precisely that equal protection. Whew, the head just spins.) So you're absolutely right: no judge(s) did eliminate it.

No judge *can* eliminate a part of a constitution. *That* is up to the people, speaking through its elected representatives, to do. Not the courts. And I have very certainly never said otherwise. In fact, that is my fundamental thesis: that a constitution, in a modern liberal democracy, expresses the fundamental consensus of the people which adopts it and agrees to be governed by it -- and only that people can repeal or replace or alter it. And governments may not violate it. And the courts are there precisely to make sure that governments do not violate constitutions (among other functions, of course).

And an agreement is struck! The courts do not have the option to declare laws void and should not twist things to suit their personal agendas. However, juries can as a fact, throw out the law and convict, or acquit as is appropriate for the situation.

This is just weird. You might want to consider actually responding to all those things I've already said, rather than just pretending they were never said and you can post these weird and completely nonsensical figments of your imagination, or ignorance. Either listen up and learn, or straighten up and admit you know.

The agreement is struck -- and the courts are assigned to ensure that the agreement is upheld. It's that simple. And if the governments that the people who agreed to be bound by that agreement elect go ahead and break the agreement -- say, by enacting legislation to require that everyone attend a particular church on Sundays, or prohibiting newspapers from publishing, or precluding women from working in factories, or imposing the death penalty for shoplifting, or any other little thing that violates the terms of that agreement -- then the courts really do get to smack the government and its legislation down.

Yup, the govt could ignore the courts. But a government that did that would just be a small symptom of a really big, ugly, festering problem: a people who had chosen to elect a government that violated the fundamental pact the people had agreed to ... i.e., a really nasty bunch of people casting those ballots. And there just isn't anything that can be done once enough people are that nasty.

Oh, well, except hole up in an armed compound and set it on fire when they come to get ya, I guess.

'I would much rather be governed by the 1st 100 names in the Boston phone book, than the faculty at Yale'

Okey dokey ... and yet so strangely irrelevantly.

You do agree that the function of juries is not to govern, right? You remember: executive, legislative, judicial? Hint (and reminder from last time): juries belong to that third one.

Jurors "govern" when they wear their elector hats, not when they wear their juror hats.

And in closing, let me just ask again: what exactly do you imagine that constitutions are for?

Maybe you will answer.

[cedarriver]

23. a discussion, great!

It is hard to get around facts, aint it? Fact. a jury can, in the face of evidence that is not contradicted by the defense or any one else, convict the accused. A judge can refuse the jury verdict and turn the defendant lose or call a mistrial and try again, that is in the judges purview. The jury has violated no law, no consequences result for the jury.

A jury can look at the facts and the law used to accuse the defendant and determine that the law does not apply or the law is bad and acquit the defendant, now there is no recourse. The judge has no options other than release the defendant. I can tell from your responses that you dont like this, but it is the law. That is the way our system of jurisprudence is set up. The jury has the, right, and ability to judge the law. A simple proof that you might use to prove my point, is what happens, within the legal framework to prevent a jury from tossing out a law they deem bad. I'll give you a hint, none.

Lawyers hate this concept, but not as much as judges hate this concept. Which is why a lot of judges will toss a lawyer in jail for informing a jury that, hey guess what? you have the lawful right to not convict this person if you find the law being used is bad, or not applicable to this situation. Thats another fact. Them facts are a tussle huh?

Your situation from a legal reference is true, it just fails to note the obvious that I just did above, 'and the jury can acquit judging the law to be bad' I'm just guessing, but I am willing to place a small friendly wager that a lawyer wrote the passage you quote

"The trial judge presiding over the case will tell the jury about the parties, their lawyers, and what the case is about. The aim is to obtain a fair and impartial jury, and for this purpose questions may be asked either by the judge or by the lawyers. The object of these questions is to determine whether any juror is disqualified to sit on the particular case or should be excused from participating in the trial. The jurors must answer these questions frankly and accurately."

Rereading your linked article from the Rhode Island Bar Association, I find the last sentence quite intriguing. Because at the top of this linked article it states quite correctly that qualifications for jury duty is a legal resident and a qualified elector. That's what would be referred to as, law. As in, a statute passed by our elected representatives. The questions referred to, do not, as a matter of statue have to be answered. All question asked be lawyers from either the defense of prosecution can be answered by a simple response. I am legally qualified to serve on this jury, and will render a fair decision.

Ya see, that last sentence says 'must' answer. And I dont have to. I must drive the speed limit or I will be fined, privileges revoked, or spend time incarcerated. I must not abuse my children or I will suffer the consequences. I must register for the draft or I could be jailed.
There is no statute that penalizes a qualified jury for showing up for jury duty, giving an oath to render a fair verdict and refusing to answer silly questions like, have you ever had an affair or known anyone close to you, that has?

Jeesh, prohibition. Yes the constitution was amended by the proper elected representatives. That is not in dispute. It just proves me right and you wrong. The jury used its legal authority to say, yes the facts prove the defendant did in fact posses and sell alcohol, yes the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly bans this activity. No, we the jury refuse to convict the accused.

I lack proof showing that juries refused to apply bad law? Huh? See above paragraph. That would be, what is called in legal parlance, proof that juries tossed 'bad law'

The balance of the post is mostly pointless

My reference to wanting to be governed by common people, rather than self important twits, was an obviously too oblique reference to your predilection for people of Degrees being smarter than the rest.

I almost forgot. What is the purpose of the Constitution? It is a assure that the government does not step on the rights of the people. Your opinion is that the jury is part of the judiciary. I happen to believe that the jury is in fact 'the people' not, the judiciary

[iverglas]

24. ah, facts

Fact. a jury can, in the face of evidence that is not contradicted by the defense or any one else, convict the accused. A judge can refuse the jury verdict and turn the defendant lose or call a mistrial and try again, that is in the judges purview. The jury has violated no law, no consequences result for the jury.

Great fact!! Did you have a point??

In fact, if the jury has convicted the accused because the jury was corrupted, the jury *has* violated a law, and consequences *will* result.

So much depends on what FACTS one selects, doesn't it though?

A jury can look at the facts and the law used to accuse the defendant and determine that the law does not apply or the law is bad and acquit the defendant, now there is no recourse. The judge has no options other than release the defendant. I can tell from your responses that you dont like this, but it is the law.

Let me offer you a fable.

Here I am, sitting at my computer where I am, and I say: "It's raining!" Now, that's a FACT.

But there you are, sitting at your computer where you are, and you say: "It's not raining!" And that's a FACT.

Amazing, eh?

Where you are, "the way <YOUR> system of jurisprudence is set up", the jury's acquittal will be the end of it. (So you say, and so I'll assume.) Where I am, it isn't. And I like where I'm at better, for a whole lot of reasons.

The jury is NOT the trier of law. The jury does NOT have the authority to overrule the elected legislature's decisions as to what constitutes a crime, and what the punishment for it is. If the jury finds that an accused person has committed the acts, with the intent, that the elected legislature has decided will constitute a crime, and without excuse or defence or justification, the jury simply has no business telling the legislature, and the electorate which chose it and which it represents, to go fuck themselves.

The courts do have the authority to do that, where the law under which the conviction was imposed was unconstitutional -- because WE have given them that authority, precisely to protect our rights. So if an accused is convicted under an unconstitutional law, the conviction can be overturned on appeal by a court striking down the law. Of course, the judge who presided over the jury trial could have done that in the first place, and refused to send the case to the jury at all.

The jury has the, right, and ability to judge the law.

You have in fact, despite all these words, offered no proof of this assertion. It is a false assertion, where I'm at, and you have failed to prove that it is a fact where you're at.

Juries have the ability to acquit someone on a whim. I have the ability to smack you in the head. In neither case does the existence of the ability prove the existence of a right.

Lawyers hate this concept, but not as much as judges hate this concept. Which is why a lot of judges will toss a lawyer in jail for informing a jury that, hey guess what? you have the lawful right to not convict this person if you find the law being used is bad, or not applicable to this situation. Thats another fact.

This is odd. If it's a fact that judges do this, are you saying that judges have the right to do this? And if so, is this not precisely because what the lawyers are doing is illegal? That is, are the lawyers not telling the jurors a LIE, not a fact?

<blah blah blah blah blah> All question asked be lawyers from either the defense of prosecution can be answered by a simple response. I am legally qualified to serve on this jury, and will render a fair decision.

Aren't you forgetting that "jury of your peers" business? Is a person who is prejudiced against me from the get-go my "peer"? I don't really think so. But whatever; I don't see this as having anything to do with the issue at hand.

Jeesh, prohibition. Yes the constitution was amended by the proper elected representatives. That is not in dispute. It just proves me right and you wrong.

Well, I suppose so ... if you think that proof by blatant assertion is actually "proof".

Things do change. If the constitutional provision in question hadn't been repealed, juries in a couple of years might have started convicting again. Who knows??

The jury used its legal authority to say, yes the facts prove the defendant did in fact posses and sell alcohol, yes the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly bans this activity. No, we the jury refuse to convict the accused.

I lack proof showing that juries refused to apply bad law? Huh? See above paragraph. That would be, what is called in legal parlance, proof that juries tossed 'bad law'

Once again, only if you regard proof by blatant assertion as proof.

We know that the juries refused to convict. We have absolutely no idea of WHY they refused to convict. Juries, you may recall, DO NOT GIVE REASONS for their decisions. You can draw inferences from other facts you happen to know (selective as they might be), but you really just can't offer proof. For someone who seems to take such an interest in these things, you don't seem to understand them very well.

My reference to wanting to be governed by common people, rather than self important twits, was an obviously too oblique reference to your predilection for people of Degrees being smarter than the rest.

Your statement about my predilection is based on no evidence whatsoever, and most assuredly a false statement.

The irrelevance of someone's opinion about whom they wish to be GOVERNED BY in a discussion of whom we are entitled to be JUDGED BY may have escaped you. If it didn't and you are just pretending to be as dense as someone would have to be for it to escaped him/her, well, the wisdom of doing that is entirely up to you.

I almost forgot. What is the purpose of the Constitution? It is a assure that the government does not step on the rights of the people. Your opinion is that the jury is part of the judiciary. I happen to believe that the jury is in fact 'the people' not, the judiciary

Ah yes, and I believe that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden. Wherefore those FACTS now, eh?

Of course, I didn't say that juries are part of the judiciary. Get out your specs, eh?

Now, if a jury is free to do whatever takes its fancy, regardless of what the law says, and the government prosecutes you for smacking me in the head when you did no such thing and there is no evidence that you did, and the jury convicts you anyhow ... anybody's rights been stepped on?

How 'bout if you *did* smack me in the head, but the jury is composed of fundie religionists who believe that men are entitled to smack women in the head, and the jury refuses to convict you ... anybody's rights been stepped on now?

Me, I'll go with a government protecting my rights by making it illegal for anybody to smack me in the head, regardless of what the fundie religionists in the electorate and on juries think of that, because the constitution requires that I be given the equal protection of the law, even if I'm one of those feminazi bitches.

And I'll go with a judicial system that prevents people who smack me in the head from being acquitted by juries who don't like feminazi bitches, thank you very much -- that allows their decisions to be overturned if the decision was not based on the proper application of the law to the facts.

And if the government makes a law that says that men may smack women in the head but women may not smack men in the head, I'll go with a system that allows the courts to strike that law down, thank you again.

Fortunately for both of us, we both have the latter system: the courts may indeed strike down unconstitutional laws. If you don't have the former system -- if you have juries that can convict and acquit on a whim and nothing to protect you against them -- then again, all I can say is watch out, you may just be the feminazi bitch du jour next year.

Where do you manage to misplace so many of the periods from your paragraphs, I wonder? What a strange and strangely familiar habit ...

[cedarriver]

25. putting word in my mouth, heh?

If the jury was corrupt there will be consequences

Ahh? corrupt jury? You may want to enlighten me on my mention of a corrupt jury. How 'bout this? Not a corrupt jury? Consequences? And inventing a 'fact', never mentioned in my post doesn't help buttress your claim. This jury has absolutely no evidence of corruption. (if you can make stuff up so can I) Guess what? No, none, nada, not even a slap on the wrist for doing exactly what I presented. (lacking your invention of corruption) Again you seemed to not trust your peers a wit.

As an aside it is raining here as I look out my window, just not sure of relevance. I have been talking about United States of America, not Canada. But a serious Question. A jury in Canada can be punished for a decision that goes against the wishes of the court? And if so what is that punishment? And why would anyone serve, knowing that if their decision was deemed wrong by the courts would suffer your afore mentioned consequences. Anyway my proof is, that a jury can and has deemed the law to be bad and refused to convict the defendant. The jury suffered no punishment and the defendant went free. That would be the fact thing again. And proves my statement that it is a juries right to judge the law along with the fact. IF that were not so the law would have a procedure for a judge to overturn an acquittal. Near as I can tell an acquittal has never been overturned.

That is, are the lawyers not telling the jurors a LIE, not a fact?

Gee wiz. How many examples do you want? You can not dispute that a jury can, and has, acquitted a defendant. It has happened. You can not dispute that. Other that siting a specific case complete with the appropriate case numbers and showing that, yes, in spite of the evidence and despite a constitutional legal law, defendants are acquitted because the jury tossed the law. You'll have to explain to me what 'proof' your looking for, other than the fact it does happen.

"You do agree that the function of juries is not to govern, right? You remember: executive, legislative, judicial? Hint (and reminder from last time): juries belong to that third one."

"Of course, I didn't say that juries are part of the judiciary. Get out your specs, eh?"

Didn't say that juries are part of the judiciary? So that above quote was added to your post? Maybe I'll just retype part of it, sometimes that makes a direct quote more clear to me. Lets see, remember three branches of government, legislative, executive, judicial, (reminder juries are part of the third one)

NO, I get the same meaning with, and without specs. You did not imply, nor did I infer, that you said juries are part of the judiciary, you just flat out made the statement.

And as always you think the government is your answer. I do vote and participate in my government at multiple levels, but I do so dearly love the idea that common people are in fact what is important, not the government.

And the coup de grace where are my periods? (shh I'm pretty certain there is period troll that lurks in the wires waiting for me to post something and than swipes em and sells em on e bay)

[iverglas]

26. yer a barrel of laughs!

Or monkeys. Or maybe fish. Yeah, fish, I think. Don't worry; I have no firearms.

But is there nothing you can do to make your posts coherent, in the simple legibility sense? HTML is really very easy, and you've had such a lot of time to learn it. In front of the stuff you want to quote, you stick a tag. It could be <b> for bold, or <i> for italics (not my personal favourite because of the font I use for reading), or <blockquote> to indent. Then you do the same thing at the end, sticking a / in front of the thing inside the brackets. And of course you replace the pointy brackets with square ones. Voilà. (I can teach you how to do accents too, if you like.)

You may want to enlighten me on my mention of a corrupt jury. How 'bout this? Not a corrupt jury? Consequences? And inventing a 'fact', never mentioned in my post doesn't help buttress your claim.

My dear, of course you didn't mention it in your post. Your problem seems to be that you think that if you don't mention something, it doesn't exist. And that by not mentioning it, you have proved that it doesn't exist. As far as I can tell.

A judge can refuse the jury verdict and turn the defendant lose or call a mistrial and try again, that is in the judges purview. The jury has violated no law, no consequences result for the jury.

That's what you said. And it is FALSE as a statement of universal truth, because IF the jury was corrupted, THEN there will be consequences for the jury.

Try this: if the sun is shining, the pavement is not wet. True statement? Often. But IF it was raining 5 minutes ago, THEN the pavement will still be wet. Now you may call this an apple to your orange, if you like and if you are unable, or wish to portray yourself as unable, to grasp the concept of "analogy" and recognize one when you see it.

This jury has absolutely no evidence of corruption.

Quelle jury might that one be? And of course you know how an absence of proof of something is not proof of its absence. Good heavens. You have no proof that I am smoking a cigarette, but that's a very long way from proof that I am not smoking a cigarette.

A jury in Canada can be punished for a decision that goes against the wishes of the court?

Has some third person joined our fascinating discussion? Did someone say that, and I failed to hear it?

You're angling for the award for straw person argument of the week, I just know it. Sorry, it's been awarded already. You missed the deadline.

The non-existence of the assertion that you are having such trouble with makes the rest of your questions about it moot, of course. I'm sure you had fun writing them though, and I sure did have fun reading them, so you mustn't think that you wasted your time.

Anyway my proof is, that a jury can and has deemed the law to be bad and refused to convict the defendant. The jury suffered no punishment and the defendant went free. That would be the fact thing again.

How many times do you need me to agree with you? Shall I praise your perspicacity to the skies, and will this satisfy you that I have adequately acknowledged the accuracy of your statement? I will readily admit that it is probably true that at some time and in some place, a jury can and has deemed the law to be bad and refused to convict an accused person, and suffered no punishment, and the accused person went free. I will agree entirely that this is at least very probably a fact.

Need I really point out, again, that your statement would be true whether or not the jury had been corrupted? It seems so. And if the jury *had* been corrupted, and there was no proof of this happening (the jurors having been quite intelligent enough to take the money and shut up about it), an accused person who may have committed a horrific crime, or done untold damage to the economy, would have walked free and the public would have no remedy. What a good thing that would be! Right?

And proves my statement that it is a juries right to judge the law along with the fact.

And again I will ask you: if I smack you in the head, but you don't see that it was I who did it, and there is no other evidence of who did it, does this prove that I have a right to smack you in the head? Won't you answer my questions?

IF that were not so the law would have a procedure for a judge to overturn an acquittal. Near as I can tell an acquittal has never been overturned.

Well, I wouldn't know about there. But I told you of a case here. A jury acquitted Morgentaler of violating the criminal code provisions regarding abortion, and an appellate court reversed the acquittal. And the Supreme Court reversed the reversal, because the law was unconstitutional.

And the upshot of that was that no one could ever again be convicted or punished under that law, anywhere in Canada (criminal law is federal in Canada). Now I'd say that this is a good upshot. I'd say that it's a much better upshot than just having a few juries in Quebec refuse to convict under the law, while juries in Alberta went right on convicting people under an unconstitutional law. And I just don't understand why you don't think so too.

You do agree that the function of juries is not to govern, right? You remember: executive, legislative, judicial? Hint (and reminder from last time): juries belong to that third one.
... "Of course, I didn't say that juries are part of the judiciary. Get out your specs, eh?"

Didn't say that juries are part of the judiciary? So that above quote was added to your post?

I told you: the straw person argument award for the week has already been awarded.

You can retype all you like, but the adjective "judicial" will never look like the noun "judiciary". When I said "You remember: executive, legislative, judicial?", anyone who *did* remember would have read the implied noun: "branch". Executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch, of government.

The judiciary (which means "judges") is part of the judicial branch of government. So are juries.

NO, I get the same meaning with, and without specs. You did not imply, nor did I infer, that you said juries are part of the judiciary, you just flat out made the statement.

Well, maybe the specs aren't your problem. So, since the only reasons I can ever see for such misrepresentations of what people have said are dimness and disingenuousness, and you claim that your eyes are not dim ...

And as always you think the government is your answer. I do vote and participate in my government at multiple levels, but I do so dearly love the idea that common people are in fact what is important, not the government.

You put that "but" in there as if you thought you were making two mutually inconsistent statements. As if you thought that "common people" and "government" were mutually exclusive. Well, I can't think of a thing to say to that, I guess.

And the coup de grace where are my periods? (shh I'm pretty certain there is period troll that lurks in the wires waiting for me to post something and than swipes em and sells em on e bay)

Funny, you use some of the same words I'd use in speculating about the situation, but our conclusions seem to be different.

I've always enjoyed our little chats. I do hope they won't be cut short this time, don't you?

Shall I say "dog's breakfast" again, just to make the set complete? Is three the magic number?

[cedarriver]

27. Hee Hee Hee

this is fun heh?
HTML? I'll try if you try to be logical

If you want to speak of and discuss the corruption of the USA jury system, suits me, lets do that and come up with solutions, if needed.
I just don't see where corrupt juries are a big problem. If laws have been broken, then charge the wrong doers and convict them. I didn't mention corrupt juries. I just responded to a post, near as I can tell no previous posters wanted input about corrupt juries. ( I didn't mention the sun either, but I do know that it exists.

<b>absence of proof of something is not proof of its absence. Good heavens. You have no proof that I am smoking a cigarette, but that's a very long way from proof that I am not smoking a cigarette.<b>

Ahem, excuse me,Straw men? Really? You expect me to chase after the notion of trying to prove that you did not smoke? You mean like trying to prove a negative? Please, some people may bite, but I learned a long time ago proving a negative is a scientific and logical impossibility. But thanks for the condescending thoughts.

Judicial, judiciary, geesh. You do so love to hide behind the language. (assumed noun?) Please, you are grasping at a straw from the sleeve of your constructed straw men. The prosecutor represents the state (read government) the defense represents the defendant, the judge moderates the whole affair and makes sure the above two play nice. The JURY represents the people. Really this is not to hard to figure out. The jury is picked from the people, not the judicial,

And no, I do not have the right to smack you in the head. Although in the absence of proof, you will be hard pressed to come after me in criminal or civil court. Sorry, thats the way the system works. you just cant come up to my front door with an officer and think that you have the ability to drag me thru a criminal proceeding without proof. I believe that is a full answer to your question, lack of proof= no case. And no, the prosecution is not allowed to bully the defense into the position of 'this person is guilty due to their inability to to prove they didn't do 'it'.

Hey you finally agreed. A jury can decide the law, hoo haa, sure took a long time for you to admit it tho.

<b>Shall I praise your perspicacity to the skies,<b>

I sure do like that praising my perspicacity bit, please continue.

On a more serious note. You like the idea that the courts can overturn an acquittal? Here in our backward country we have a thing called double jeopardy and the government only gets one go at the brass ring, so as to to keep the government from going after political enemies. I kind of like the concept. Keeps the government from being quite so full of itself.

And yes I will repeat, if some evil doer does great harm to persons, property or the economy, and a jury releases such a person it is a shame. BUT not as much of a shame as the government having the ability to overturn acquittals and try someone multiple times for the same infraction until the government gets their desired outcome.

The jury is the 'people' this is not hard. The defense represents the accused, the prosecution represents the state (read government) The Judge is a referee to make sure the above two play nice. The jury is the 'people' and the people make a decision as to the law and facts and delivers a verdict. If the jury was part of the judiciary, or Judaical branch or whatever you are trying to muddy the waters up with, thu jury would buy under control of the court. Notice that regardless of fact of law the jury can, and does render a verdict independent of the court, which means that the jury is nothing but the 'people'

I will be waiting for my dogs breakfast cause I am gettin hungry

[cedarriver]

28. Awww

We must have exhausted the subject. Oh well. I look orward to our next meeting

[iverglas]

18. oh, durn

... or something that rhymes with Durn? And I was so looking forward to knowing what Dayton thought constitutions were for.

The subject matter remains interesting, so no need to let the conversation die too, eh?

[Wickerman]

29. I'm locking

as fascinating as this conversation may (or may have not) have been, one/two of the participants are no longer available for comment.

He shall be missed.