From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 03:01:54 GMT
>Hey Rick,
>
That jolly ole' England story was interesting. Thanks.
I heard from a friend in South Dakota that it is being
argued as a breakdown of the system so I didn't think
it would pass.
I thought that this could really end up a
scary mess. I didn't like leaving the law to a jury but
I did like the idea of a right to question the validity of
a law. I am not sure if its a joke or urban legend
but did you hear about the motorcyle helmet guy:
He was wearing his helmet on his knee. The cop stops him
and tells him its the law to wear the helmet. He tells
him I am wearing it, on my knee. He gives him a ticket.
The guys puts the helmet on his head and when he rides away
he gets into an accident and breaks his knee.
I kind of thought it would be good if somepeople could
declare they were guilty of a no helmet but thought the
law was unfair.
But yeah I can see how it could turn into a real mess.
The idea of his solution did scare me but I still kind of
agree about the problem.
I posted rest of the article because it did mention some
of the things you said.
>
RICK : If a defendant feels the law shouldn't cover his actions, he
>can challenge the law in any number of forums on any number of grounds. If
>he feels the sentence was too harsh, he can challenge it as cruel and
>unusual, or challenge the sentencing laws themselves. If he thinks the law
>should be changed he can petition his congressman or even run for office
>himself.
>
ERIN: i agree with everything else you had said but this
doesn't do it for me. If you don't want to wear a helmet
run for congress? Come on.
RICK: Newland's ideas are colossally stupid because he ignores the reality
>that even if they passed, there's absolutely no guaruntee they would ever
>work for those who truly need them. Vicious murderers, rapists and thugs
>might be able to convince a jury to 'nullify' or declare the law 'stupid'
>while poor potheads and little girls standing up to bullies might just get a
>harder headed jury. It would really just depend on the disposition of
>whatever 12 people happened to be sitting in the jury box on that particular
>day.
ERIN: I don't know if they would go far as you say here but I
guess it wouldn't be good to even give them the chance I completely agree with
you fear of leaving the law to
the jury and in some ways it already is--
The article pointed it out here:
In the mid-19th century, Northern juries often refused to convict men and
women who harbored runaway slaves. Later, Southern juries sometimes refused to
convict those who lynched blacks or prevented them from voting.
It's probably because I don't know a lot about the law
like you but it still seems like he has a point about
America becoming like a police state...but yes the solution
he offers has scary possibilites.
Thanks for the legal advice. I hope i am not being billed for it because you
guys way overcharge :-P
erin
Here is the rest of the article if you are interested!
In short, it would allow a defendant to argue that, although he broke the law,
he does not deserve to be prosecuted. "You should be allowed to tell a jury:
'Yes, I committed these actions, but ... this is a stupid law,' " Newland
said.
Opponents—including virtually all the state's legal establishment—contend that
Amendment A will make a mockery of due process, equal protection and democracy
itself.
It's dangerous, they argue, to allow 12 randomly selected citizens to nullify
laws that elected officials have enacted. They warn of courtrooms turning into
"popularity contests," where sympathetic defendants get off because they
convince jurors that the rules should not apply to them.
They point out too that because prosecutors cannot appeal acquittals, there is
no mechanism for reviewing or overturning verdicts based on sentiment rather
than law.
"It will become a lawless society," said Mike Moore, a prosecutor in Huron.
"Anytime a law is not going to be applied across the board, that's
frightening," said Jeff Larson, a public defender in Sioux Falls.
The California Supreme Court made just such an argument last year in rejecting
the principle of jury nullification. The court unanimously held that a juror
who said he could not convict as a matter of conscience—he disagreed with the
statutory rape law at issue in the case—should be removed from the panel. The
U.S. Supreme Court also has discouraged nullification, as have judges in state
courts nationwide.
In South Dakota, it's hard to gauge voter support for Amendment A, as there
has been no statewide polling on the issue.
To get it on the ballot, proponents collected 34,000 signatures, representing
about 8% of the registered voters in this sparsely populated state. They have
been handing out balloons and brochures at fairs, festivals and forums across
South Dakota.
They also launched a contest for the "best courtroom horror story," promising
more than $4,000 in prizes. Newland said he has received at least 80 entries
so far—and while all the contestants support his proposed reforms, not all
will be able to vote for Amendment A. A number sent in their stories from the
state penitentiary.
Opponents, meanwhile, have been afraid to do much public campaigning. Lawyers
have debated the amendment at forums across the state—including one here last
week at the University of South Dakota law school. They worry that advertising
might backfire. Voters tend to be suspicious of attorneys—so they might reason
that if the state bar opposes Amendment A, it must be good.
"There's a tremendous amount of fear in the legal community," Larson said.
Amendment A represents a new tactic in the long history of jury nullification
drives.
For the last 13 years, a group called the Fully Informed Jury Assn. has been
peddling the concept to politicians, lobbying for legislation in Oklahoma,
Arizona, Montana and elsewhere. That hasn't worked. So the group's founder,
Larry Dodge, decided to go directly to the voters. Newland agreed to sponsor
the fight in South Dakota, and the two raised $100,000 to get the issue on the
ballot. If it works, both men are eager to try the approach elsewhere.
"This is the key to getting control of the government back in the hands of the
citizens," said Dodge, a photographer.
Both sides in the campaign agree that juries do sometimes ignore the law—and
will continue to do so with or without Amendment A.
A famous case of jury nullification took place nearly 270 years ago, when
publisher John Peter Zenger was accused of printing "seditious libel" against
the colonial governor of New York. His newspaper articles were, in fact,
seditious by the standards of the time—but they were accurate, and a jury
acquitted Zenger, helping establish the principle of a free press.
In the mid-19th century, Northern juries often refused to convict men and
women who harbored runaway slaves. Later, Southern juries sometimes refused to
convict those who lynched blacks or prevented them from voting.
More recently, former federal prosecutor Paul Butler noticed that jurors in
Washington, D.C.—most of them black—were refusing to convict black defendants
on minor drug charges, even when the evidence was overwhelming. The experience
pushed him to study nullification—and he now supports initiatives such as
Amendment A.
"If 12 citizens are saying that a certain law is being unfairly applied, then
I trust that judgment," said Butler, now a law professor at George Washington
University. "This is why juries were established. We wanted human beings to
bring their judgment to these situations."
Andrew Liepold, a law professor at the University of Illinois, disagrees. He
has studied jury nullification too. His conclusion: Just because jurors
sometimes ignore the law does not mean they should be encouraged to do so.
"Trials aren't designed to make policy judgments," he said.
Folks who don't like a law, he added, should work through the political
process to change it.
That's not good enough for Jason Koistinen, 23, a first-year law student at
the University of South Dakota. "It takes too long," he said, declaring his
intention to vote for Amendment A. "Also, a lot of the legislators are old and
conservative. They don't necessarily reflect the views of the voters."
Both sides in the debate agree on one point: With or without Amendment A,
justice is at times arbitrary—and at times, elusive. The question is whether
the measure will make the system work better or worse.
"People get wrongly convicted based on false identifications, on dishonest
testimony, on incomplete evidence," said Mike Butler, an attorney in Sioux
Falls. "This amendment does not do anything to correct those injustices."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 02:56:53 GMT