This is the way that is really justice.
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/jury-nullification-peers-refuse-to.html
In a time in our country where our rights are being stomped upon by the oppressive forces known as "Law Enforcement" this is a breath of freedom. Just because it is a "Law" does not make it morally right. Just because I disagree with the use of a substance on a regular basis in most situations does not make either of us wrong. I can disagree with someone without rancor. I personally disagree with the marijuana laws. I have been a casual user in my youth. I voted for Bill Clinton although I was disappointed in his claim that "he didn't inhale". What a bunch of CRAP! Just say I was young and in college and I tried it. So we replaced him with a coke head, wow that was smart. And now we are now painting Michael Phelps with a bad brush because a picture was published of him smoking a bong! MORE crap. If I was Michael the photographer would be looking over his shoulder for a very long time. But I am a believer in a scope and a sabot round that does not leave penitentiary rifling on the bullet.
If the attorneys were to select me for a Jury in a case that I thought was an immoral law you can bet a large portion of the US's GDP that I would find a not-guilty verdict. And I would argue my stand on the fact that if a law in unjust then enforcing that law makes us as immoral as the people who wrote that law. And I am pretty sure y'all are aware of my stance on most politicians.
If we all would make a stand on morals we could maybe start this country back to a government of the, for the, and BY the PEOPLE. NOT the fat cats in DC or Downtown getting money for nothing and bankrupting a state that had one of the top ten economies in the WORLD by itself. But I suppose we need more $six figure administrators for programs in the state and larger class sizes in schools so we can poorly educate our many children.
But thats another rant.
Ottar
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Going through voir dire as a prospective juror shook my faith in the criminal justice system far more than being a political activist in the '60s did. The first trial was the mildly retarded young Arab man and his father who drove an ice cream truck in Lodi. The prosecution dismissed anyone who had a admitted to having a problem with the fact that their only witness was paid ($250,000)to go out and find evidence that someone was plotting a terrorist act. They also dismissed anyone who admitted to regularly reading the newspaper.
The second trial I was called for the same thing happened. We were asked if we had a problem with compensated testimony. Does the State bribe ALL of it's witnesses?
Post a Comment