If you were on a Jury, would you convict someone charged with carrying W/O license?

Would you convict a man carrying illegally

  • yes

    Votes: 39 32.0%

  • no

    Votes: 83 68.0%
  • Total voters
    122
I'm pretty ignorant to the concept of jury nullification :confused: The way I see it my job as a juror would be to determine whether this person commited this crime. That's it. :o Whether that crime is carrying illegally, raping a toddler, or tying an elephant to a parking meter in Tampa (class 2 misdemeanor, IIRC) the fact that it's a crime remains the same, no?

I should read up on jury nullification because before seeing yesterday's thread I'd never heard of it. :p
 
It is very interesting to me to see the number of folks here who believe that just because they are on a jury they get to make the laws.

If the tables were turned and it was they who were being tried for some other type of offense, would they be happy with jurors ignoring the law in order to convict them?
 
It is very interesting to me to see the number of folks here who believe that just because they are on a jury they get to make the laws.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is the law. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Bear means carry. Arms means guns. Just because a bunch of half-wits and Rosie O'Donnells have convinced much of the population that it ain't so, don't mean it ain't so.
 
Just because a bunch of half-wits and Rosie O'Donnells have convinced much of the population that it ain't so, don't mean it ain't so.
Click to expand...

well you havent convinced this half wit with your constituional analysis thats fer sure

WildthescholarAlaska
 
if he had no criminal record...
Click to expand...

If you were sitting on the jury, you wouldn't know if he had a criminal record. That information isn't relevant to the case and wouldn't be revealed to you.

I'd ask myself, what would Ron Paul do? :cool: For my 2 cents, I'd probably not convict because it's not a constitutional crime.
 
To use a quote from who I don't remember" a citizen has 4 boxes of liberty 1 the ballot box, 2 the soap box, 3 the jury box, 4 the cartridge box". The ballot box you vote for the best person, or against the worst person. The soap box to speak up on what is important to you. The jury box you vote to protect society from wrong, the criminal or the law itself can be the wrong. The cartridge box when everything else failed.
 
If it was a 'shall-issue' state, I would convict. If actually guilty BTW!

If it were a 'may-issue' (other than AL) or no-issue state, I would not convict either way.
 
I have found that a person that is willing to break one law is more than likely willing to break other laws that "he doesn't believe in". Where do we draw the line?
 
I would no more convict a man of the simple decision to go armed about his business than I would convict him of trespass for entering a whites only restroom if he were black.

I do not believe that the passing of a law by some legislature and it's subsequent signature by some governor (or president) relieves me of the responsibility to evaluate the morality of that law.

What else does it mean to be a citizen if not to ride herd on the elected help.

Surely there are methods to attempt change by affecting the legislative process, but just as surely there are environments where it is a practical impossibility to succeed.

To vote one's conscience is a duty, not a privilege. If you ignore the moral implications of a law, you are remiss, in my opinion when serving as a juror.

To refuse to convict, does not set precedent. It is only when citizens refuse to convict in case after case, that it becomes apparent that, despite legislative approval, a particular law is suspect.

All that being said, judges and prosecutors do a pretty good job of weeding out folks who aren't willing to follow the judge's instruction to consider the FACTS and not the law.

Last time I went in, the judge specifically asked if anyone had HEARD ABOUT (not believed in) jury nullification and dumped everyone who raised their hand.
 
I do not believe that the passing of a law by some legislature and it's subsequent signature by some governor (or president) relieves me of the responsibility to evaluate the morality of that law.
Click to expand...

Thats what the folks at NAMBLA beleive :eek:

WildnomorejudeochristianmoralitypleaseAlaska
 
So all of you that believe it is not your duty to judge the law, only the offense, I ask you:

Would you convict: (if it were [still] against the law)
a man who refused to return a slave to his master?
a newspaper editor who wrote an article critical of the President?
a black woman who refused to give up her bus seat to a white man?
a priest who preached a sermon for a religion that was prohibited by law?

Laws get changed because men of conscience fight to change them.
 
Thats what the folks at NAMBLA beleive
Click to expand...

That's a pretty looong jump, Wild. Grasping at straws perhaps? What's the "North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes" got to do with it?:p

badbob
 
Sure Wild. You're right. A NAMBLA adherent on a child abuse jury would be a horrible injustice (from my point of view) in the outcome of that particular trial.

The point I'm making is that it will make no difference in the 'greater scheme of things' unless it is a morality or viewpoint held by a lot of people. I sorta suspect that NAMBLA would fail that test.

The individual outcomes precipitated by such moral 'outliers' are less troublesome to our society as a whole than the concept of a legal system completely divorced from each individual's concept of what is right (not just what is legal).

With all the warts, I still think it's reasonable, even necessary, to expect folks to consult their moral compass as well as the direction indicated by law.
 
No, I would not convict. And anyone that can legally own a gun should not be convicted. We should not need a stinking CCW in the first place.
 
No!!!!!!!!!!!!

I VOTE NO!

should he be punished, sure, if he is a repeat offender, multiple felonies, then he should be punished (not 10 years though). mandatory sentancing needs to go. if we have mandatory sentancing, then whats the point of hiring judges? each case, and person is unique, and should be treated as such in court. Mandatory sentancing is the sign of a lazy judge.

Judge Half-Price, says give him a fine ($500), take his gun, and give him a warning, 2nd strike should be 30 days in jail fine ($1500), 3rd strike, and beyond 90 days in jail, and of course a fine of $2000 (cause ohio is broke) :(
 
If the evidence is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt I will always convict a person who has committed a mala en se crime. That is, a crime that is wrong in and of itself (murder, rape, child molestation, theft, arson, kidnapping, etc)

However I would be hard pressed to find a person guilty of a mala prohibita crime. That is one that is only a crime because somebody arbitrarily decided to make it a crime. Such crimes are typically so called "victimless" crimes.

If nobody but the "perpetrator" has been harmed by the action I have to ask if a crime has really even been committed.
 
The individual outcomes precipitated by such moral 'outliers' are less troublesome to our society as a whole than the concept of a legal system completely divorced from each individual's concept of what is right (not just what is legal).
Click to expand...

You're right, musher. Of course we could change "The Scales of Justice" to "The Scales of Legal" or how about the Pledge of Allegiance: "... with liberty and laws and statutes for all".

badbob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top