nothing new if the murderer is not black, but the victim is. happened a lot in the south when black people were murdered. probably in the east, west and north too.

After deliberating for only 67 minutes, the jury returned a verdict: not guilty. Reporters said they overheard laughing inside the jury room. One juror later said: "We wouldn't have taken so long if we hadn't stopped to drink pop.""

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/peopleevents/e_trial.html

a juror, who finds capital punishment to be inherantly unjust, voting to acquit an accused killer to keep them from being executed?

In death penalty cases there are two phases. The jurors get to determine guilt and punishment (in the event of a guilty verdict) separately.

-Laelth

OO NOOO WOTLL WEDOOOO?

I think people (wrongly) go to prison for dealing pot. I have never heard of anyone going to prison for smoking pot.

terminal cancer:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/mackenzie-family-found-guilty-at-marijuana-trial/article_5d4ada2b-1946-5fc2-9718-c1efd59777d8.html

In answer to your question, yes. It happen. The drug war is built upon arresting and incarcerating people for low level drug offenses, like smoking a joint in their own living room.


http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/04/possession_of_marijuana_should.html

Prison is reserved for felony level offenses.

But the bottom line is, we have millions of people in prison for low-level pot offenses, many of them either simple possession or growing for ones' self, even as a terminally ill medical patient, in the case of the gentleman in the story I linked.

Many times smoking a joint becomes a Felony, in many states, if someone has a prior offense.

That's only when the system "works". When they have a fuck-up, like the flash grenade that goes into the baby's crib during the no-knock raid, or the kid who is locked in the DEA holding room for a week because he was at a fraternity 420 party, that's something else.

We spend 60 Billion a year- not including costs of local LEO and incarceration, mind you- on the "drug war"; the lion's share of it aimed at pot smoking. That's why the gravy train people are so opposed to legalization.

No, most pot smokers don't end up in prison for it- but some do. And the anti-legalization people will fight tooth and nail to retain the "right" to haul people off to prison for taking a hit off a joint.

The 4 boxes of freedom -

The soap box
The ballot box
The jury box
The cartridge box

If you don't like the outcome you load your gun ala Cliven Bundy?

Should we passively accept summary punishments? Persecution of minorities? Loss of life, liberty and property without due process or just reason?

"second amendment remedies" for things that people don't agree with - of the like of Cliven Bundy.

By the by, I don't think Cliven Bundy is fighting for freedom - he's scamming the pubic while brandishing weapons at law enforcement.

I'm not even sure he makes the grade.

But if, for example, the Klan were to threaten a minority family and the law could not be counted upon to fulfill its civil obligation because the politicians and the sheriff were both part of the lynch mob and no jury would convict those menacing their fellow citizens then I would wholly support the armed defense of those being threatened.

Don't fixate on Bundy; I know I don't.

And the The soap box, The ballot box, The jury box, The cartridge box saying goes way back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

and two of the people to have a stated a variant were none other then Frederick Douglass and Elizabeth Stanton, one of the leading figures of the early women's rights campaings in the years after the Civil War.

I guess how one view's the statement depends on the context when it is said and by the person saying it.

I spose so.

Certainly there are times when it might be warranted,

but I can imagine this is most resonant with activists who don't like laws, and I am thinking of sovereign citizens and tea-jadists...

those who have done nothing other than smoke a few joints. I remember a case in Ca a few years ago where the Fed Govt went in and arrested a LEGAL (under CA's state law) Pot Grower, and charged him under Federal law. They jury did not know how much time he would get if they found him guilty.

When he was sentenced to 30 years, jurors were devastated. They stated that they did not want to convict him, but had to given the evidence. I don't think they knew either that what he was doing was legal in CA.

Had even ONE of them understood their right as jurors to nullify the law they did not agree with, this could not have happened.

punishment, so information about possible lengths of sentence if convicted is not relevant to their job. Their sole function is to be triers of fact, to determine guilt or innocence. Jury nullification not only violates the oath they take in order to be a juror but it also undermines the entire point of having a jury.

if a law is bad? Doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. Imagine trying to convict a white person of racial discrimination (or much worse) in the South in the 50's. That's jury nullification.

who knew that there would be corrupt officials who would implement BAD LAWS. Jury nullification was meant to give MORE POWER to the people to refute BAD LAWS.

Throughout history however, other laws have been passed, NOT to make JN illegal, but to deny the jury the right to know they have that power.

Iow, people have to educate themselves regarding the power they have because it isn't always in the best interests of those in power for the people to understand that there ARE ways they can make bad laws irrelevant. The Drug Laws stole many of our rights, they are BAD LAWS and this is exactly how to get rid of them.

The jury in the case I mentioned did not know they could nullify the LAW. They thought they had no choice when in fact they did.

just hard to prove. The whole purpose of a jury is to be a fact finder, not give its opinion on the law. As such it is the basis of our whole trial system. Be careful what you wish for.

nt

juror can be removed from the jury (violation of the State Penal Code) for attempting jury nullification but that's the extent of the punishment for the violation.

Yes, the jury did not know that he was acting legally under California law (and with the support of the city of Oakland). Because federal judges do not allow any mention of "medical marijuana" in these cases since federal law doesn't recognize medical marijuana.

The jurors held a press conference to denounce their verdict the next day--after they found out the rest of the story.

The federal judge in the case then sentenced him to time served.

Ed actually wore a clown suit to court at least once during his trial. His comment on the situation.

are under the law like the common person there needs to be nullification with extreme prejudice either we are equal or the system is unjust by definition.

Anyone actually see the Vice video on the entrapment of a kid with Aspergers by the police in an undercover sting at a high school? Pathetic police.

WHOOOOOOOOOO

I CAN HAZ THE POTS NOW?