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
Why do you think we have so many sexually transmitted diseases these days? Why do you think we have so many illegitimate children who have no father or mother or both and hence have no upbringing or if they do it's a horrible upbringing? Why do you think we have, I think, a 50% divorce rate?
Click to expand...

None of the above has anything to do with legal and regulated prostitution.

Street prostittution does go hand in hand with disease transmission. Its contribution to the amount of fatherless children in this nation though is minimal compared to good old fashioned irresponsible behaviour. The same can be said of disease transmission.

The vast majority of divorces have NOTHING to do with prostitution, legal or illegal.

My stating that religion was at the heart of creating sodomy laws is not a finger in the eye of any particular religion. The passing of laws against sodomy are absolutely related to the influences of the prevalent religion at the time of the laws writing. The same can be said about blue laws banning alcohol sales on Sundays of codes which required store to be closed on Sundays. Stating an accepted truth is nothing incendiary.

I do believe your views are being colored by the religion you have been raised in. I am not certain what religion that is. It is not an insult, and is not meant as such. You have strong views on the subject at hand and those must come from somewhere. I have yet to meet an individual who was so stronly opposed to legalized prostitution and in favor of sodomy laws who did not draw much of the justification from their religion telling them what is "wrong". All people are welcome to their own morality and opinions. When they attempt to inflict what they consider "right" upon others though through the law I become concerned.

Most people are rasied within one organized religion and over the years either choose to follow its precepts or discard them. I have discarded most of the man made rules instituted by the Roman Catholic Church but do not mind if others choose to follow them.

Back on topic I would refuse to convict an otherwise law abiding citizen of a weapons charge. I would also refuse to convict a woman of prostitution if she were not out soliciting on the streets. I would also refuse to convict a person on a marajuana charge who was simply partaking of it in their home. Finally I would never convict a homosexual of a sodomy charge for an act committed between two consenting adults.
 
Back on topic I would refuse to convict an otherwise law abiding citizen of a weapons charge
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. You're not going to know if he is an "otherwise law abiding citizen." Prior convictions and charges are not allowed to be brought up in court. The jury has to consider only the charge in question.
 
NO WAY, there are different circumstances for every case, Did he just shoot the SOB that was climbing out the window after molesting his 8 yr old kid or did he shoot someone on the road because they didn't get out of his way? That is why we should let a jury decide every case, not some idiot looking for votes.
We still have the 2nd Amendment, the people have the right to bare Arms even if the people we put in office are taking it away.
 
That I had to go through a thing and pay to get my CCWL and to renew it is completely unrelated to how I'd vote on a jury in such a case. "I had to get mine, so you are going to jail because you didn't get yours" is a childish concept.

Sad fact is that every action you take depends on the circumstances you're in. Situational ethics is the only kind there is.

A man comes to find out his wife is planning to have him killed for insurance. the man notifies the police, but since such plans are rarely advertised, not much is done. The man buys a gun and carries it for the 30 or so days it takes to get a license. Or maybe he's too shaken to even think about licenses. He's stopped for a taillight and caught. If I'm on the jury with these facts in front of me, he will walk.

A man walks into a gun shop and likes the look of a particular .45. He waits his 3 or 5 days and picks it up. He asks no questions about licensing or courses for such licensing of the shop staff. In fact, he can't depose a single person who has been told of any plan to get a license, though the prosecutor has located ten who know he carries the gun and can describe it. But he carries it anyway, concealed. Maybe in his pocket. He's known to be aggressive and pick fights on occasion. He's stopped the same way the other guy was and caught. I'm fairly likely to vote to convict.

Life is not black and white. Context is everything.
 
Therein lies the problem. You're not going to know if he is an "otherwise law abiding citizen." Prior convictions and charges are not allowed to be brought up in court. The jury has to consider only the charge in question.
Click to expand...

You are partially coorect. The information may come out though. The "clean citizen" is not going to have an issue with his past being aired in court. Prosecution can challenge any claim made by the defendent and use the prior convictions to refute claims as appropriate. You may or may not know if the defendent had a criminal record but you should almost always know if he had a clean record as the defense will shout it from the rooftops and have no problem with the prosecution attempting to refute it.

If it is a weapons charge alone I would probably opt for nullification. If it is a weapons charge added like a cherry on top to armed robbery, assualt with a deadly weapon and a host of other items and I am convinced of guilt then I am going to convict on all to try and get as much time assigned to him as possible.
 
invention_45

"Situational ethics is the only kind there is."

So, you change your personal code of ethics like you change your underwear?

That's pretty sad if it's true.
 
sasquatch:

see what Musketeer said.

I'm not pretending to speak for him in the following.

"Situational ethics" is a buzzphrase made up by those who want you to use only THEIR ethical base. The world ain't so simple. I do not live in a black and white world. I'm capable of sizing up a situation with very few rules to lean on, and making decisions about what to do based on something other than my own self-interest.

I not only change my ethics with the situation, i.e., think in context, but I change them with time, as well. Sometimes the world doesn't fit my mental model and it takes something to display that to me. At that point, I'll review my ethical base and behave accordingly in the future.

It's worked well so far.
 
invention_45

"I'm capable of sizing up a situation with very few rules to lean on, and making decisions about what to do based on something other than my own self-interest."
Click to expand...

What you are espousing is not "situational ethics". It goes by the name of antinomianism: there is no law—everything is relative to the moment and should be decided in a spontaneous fashion.

In my humble opinion, one's code of ethics should not change to fit the moment. But maybe that's just me.
 
What you are espousing is not "situational ethics". It goes by the name of antinomianism: there is no law—everything is relative to the moment and should be decided in a spontaneous fashion.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. Ethics are situational. There is nothing to say you ethics have to be so limited and thoughtless as to be something along the line of "lying is wrong". Ethics can be "lying is wrong unless it is done to serve a greater good". Therefore a thinking person can have a very strong code of ethics and yet still be able to evaluate different situations for themselves.

Ethics are not like religion where you are told think one way and one way only and believe only the limited set of information that is provided for you. Ethics are formed through experience and belief. They are molded to fit your belief system and your enviroment.
 
I can see the point...I believe that we all agree that stealing is wrong. But is a mother who steals a bit of food to feed her starving child as guilty as a professional thief who steals for monetary gain? More importantly, if you were a juror, would you view them the same way? If you were a judge would you sentance them the same way?

Circumstances DO alter a person's ethical thinking in such cases.
 
I completely disagree. Ethics are situational. There is nothing to say you ethics have to be so limited and thoughtless as to be something along the line of "lying is wrong". Ethics can be "lying is wrong unless it is done to serve a greater good". Therefore a thinking person can have a very strong code of ethics and yet still be able to evaluate different situations for themselves.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. Situational ethics are dynamic like everything else in life. Of course there is boundrys, but those are dynamic also.
 
We see killing another man as wrong. However, there is a difference between killing an innocent on the street, and defending innocents from harm. A'int nothing but situational ethics.
 
I can see the point...I believe that we all agree that stealing is wrong. But is a mother who steals a bit of food to feed her starving child as guilty as a professional thief who steals for monetary gain? More importantly, if you were a juror, would you view them the same way? If you were a judge would you sentance them the same way?
Click to expand...

And, what if there was a mandatory sentence for theft of, say, 10 years? Do you vote to convict or vote innocent, knowing she is guilty, but sure as Hell doesn't deserve a 10 year sentence? A moral canundrum, eh?

badbob
 
All the Dickension images of the sickly widder an' her starvin' wee bairn aside aside, it isnt the juries province to let punishment influence their finding of fact.

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