We've had discussions here on legalizing various activities and commodities such as illicit drugs, with many folks opining that while they agree with drug legalization in theory, they don't feel the government is willing to let such power go. These folks are quite correct, which is why we all need to get well-versed in the concept of jury nullification.
The Founders and Framers understood quite well the power of the jury to judge the law as well as the fact, and wrote about it at length. In fact, jury nullification has played a large role in the history of the U.S., from ending the Salem witch trials to refusing to convict people for harboring runaway slaves.
We can do away with all gun laws, drug laws, RICO, etc., through jury nullification. Don't believe me? Check the facts: a statistical analysis of the 12 man jury shows that if there is a mere 5% of the populace opposed to a law, the chance for the prosecution to find a "good" jury falls to less than 50%. If the opposition is at 10%, the chance for a conviction falls below 29%. A 20% rate of opposition for a given law gives the government a 7% chance of a conviction.
Does this explain the voir dire (jury "selection" or stacking) process? Deos this explain why judges are trying to keep jurors from being informed of the right and duty to judge the law as well as the fact? It does to me.
Imagine it, you are on a jury hearing the case of a young man accused of using a controlled substance. Not any other crime, simple use. You know that the drug laws are illogical, immoral and unconstitutional, so you stick with your vote of not guilty. Hung jury. It took 23 hung juries in a row to end the Salem witch trials.
Okay, you don't like drugs, so let's pick a gun issue: a woman is charged with carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon. You know, as an avid shooter and amateur constitutional scholar that any restriction of one's right to keep and bear arms is repugnant to the constitution, so you hang the jury (even though you'd prefer to hang the judge and prosecutor). Prosecutors don't have unlimited resources, so you have increased the odds that this woman will not be tried again, and you have sent the message that some of the natives are restless.
No matter what the judge tells you, every juror in the U.S. has the right to nullify bad law. The jury selection process is simply the gov'ts attempt at an end run around the right of the citizens.
Take a look at the materials put out by the Fully Informed Jury Association at: www.fija.org. Also, get Vin Suprynowicz's book, "Send in the Waco Killers" for an in depth look at this issue, and at other freedom issues.
This form FIJA's website:
The Founders and Framers understood quite well the power of the jury to judge the law as well as the fact, and wrote about it at length. In fact, jury nullification has played a large role in the history of the U.S., from ending the Salem witch trials to refusing to convict people for harboring runaway slaves.
We can do away with all gun laws, drug laws, RICO, etc., through jury nullification. Don't believe me? Check the facts: a statistical analysis of the 12 man jury shows that if there is a mere 5% of the populace opposed to a law, the chance for the prosecution to find a "good" jury falls to less than 50%. If the opposition is at 10%, the chance for a conviction falls below 29%. A 20% rate of opposition for a given law gives the government a 7% chance of a conviction.
Does this explain the voir dire (jury "selection" or stacking) process? Deos this explain why judges are trying to keep jurors from being informed of the right and duty to judge the law as well as the fact? It does to me.
Imagine it, you are on a jury hearing the case of a young man accused of using a controlled substance. Not any other crime, simple use. You know that the drug laws are illogical, immoral and unconstitutional, so you stick with your vote of not guilty. Hung jury. It took 23 hung juries in a row to end the Salem witch trials.
Okay, you don't like drugs, so let's pick a gun issue: a woman is charged with carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon. You know, as an avid shooter and amateur constitutional scholar that any restriction of one's right to keep and bear arms is repugnant to the constitution, so you hang the jury (even though you'd prefer to hang the judge and prosecutor). Prosecutors don't have unlimited resources, so you have increased the odds that this woman will not be tried again, and you have sent the message that some of the natives are restless.
No matter what the judge tells you, every juror in the U.S. has the right to nullify bad law. The jury selection process is simply the gov'ts attempt at an end run around the right of the citizens.
Take a look at the materials put out by the Fully Informed Jury Association at: www.fija.org. Also, get Vin Suprynowicz's book, "Send in the Waco Killers" for an in depth look at this issue, and at other freedom issues.
This form FIJA's website: