What is Digg?336 Comments
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+165@roosterjm2k2:
Hiding jews in Germany during WWII was illegal. Would you have cared what the law said back then?
Bad people obey bad laws. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+120Anyone have a resource to prove this is a real and not just creative writing?
- hikaruzero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+93@roosterjm2k2
"A law requiring you to assist in muder is completely different than a law forbidding you from smoking something."
However, they are similar in the fact that they are both extremes on opposite sides. One forces you to infringe on others lives. The other prohibits you from deciding what to do with your own. Neither *type* of law is fair.
Drinking beer used to be against the law. However, due to the fact that *everybody* drank beer when it was banned, there was enough public outcry to have that law repealed. A fine example of a law that creates more problems than it solves -- and since this one case exists (although there are MANY, many others), it stands to reason that other cases can or even do exist.
Marijuana was also outlawed for the same reasons that beer was. However, since marijuana was not popularly used the same way beer was, there was not enough public outcry to repeal the prohibition. Alcohol users and alcoholics revolted. They bootlegged wine, they protested, they did everything short of going ***** all over the countryside. Marijuana users are far more peaceful. At worst they might stand up from their couch to say a few words of condemnation, then sit back down to resume munchifying. (Hey, now, don't take offense, I'm a supporter!)
But to merely say that something is bad or unpopular simply because it is against the law -- it shows your ignorance of the very purpose of law as well as the manner in which the law can be used to subject some people to the will of others unjustly.
And that, my friend, was what Corrosion was intending to point out to you. It's a shame you immediately claimed demagoguery to reiterate the view that any claim that compares the Holocaust to pretty much any other situation whatsoever is baseless and immoral.
And you speak of logic like you know what fallacies are ... I'm disappointed. - nufan00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+75I send an email to Joel Turtel (the author of the story) this morning and he just answered me:
My email:
--------------------------------------------
Hi,
that story is getting digg right now and people are wondering about the veracity of the story. Is that really happened?
Thx in advance, Daniel
--------------------------------------------
His answer:
--------------------------------------------
Daniel,
No, the story is fiction, but hopefully what juries should do. Thanks. Joel - grogan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+76This was done by many juries towards the end of prohibition in the 1930's. This does seem like it could affect the law, at least in certain areas.
Unfortunately, most people are not going to want to risk a trial by jury. The sentence is generally much harsher if they are convicted by a jury after pleading not guilty, because the court system wouldn't be able to handle it if every case went to trial. - jason17439, on 10/12/2007, -1/+71I get the impression that it's not exactly illegal in California from reading this. Maybe I'm not interpreting it right.
In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law.[16] However, the ruling could not overturn the practice of jury nullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification - ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+66@roosterjm2k2 (#6300620)
"one of those lucky few to which marijuana has no effect whatsoever other than leaving a nice "burnt-ass" taste in my mouth..."
That weed you got from school wasn't weed. Check your local pencil sharpener and try again. Has no effect? That's pretty amusing. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -50/+110um, jury nullification is illegal in many states. anyone who knows about it would not come out like this, because if he did "do his research" like he claims, he wouldn't talk about it. in california, colorado, and a few other states, they even ask you beforehand if you can uphold the law, and if you cannot uphold the law, you can be put in contempt.
in these states, you're still allowed to say "i don't think he's guilty" (and many people still do), but you're not allowed to say "im exercising jury nullification because i disagree with the law". - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+71May I ask what the hell a clinch mob is? And where did you get political prisoner from? I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but you might wanna back off the stuff a bit.
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60Regardless of the legalities of the entire situation, it's a step in the right direction. The more people that stand up against this stupid law the better chance there is of it actually being defeated. No 1 battles wins this war.
- Dezmodium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+55"um, jury nullification is illegal in many states. in california, colorado, and a few other states, they even ask you beforehand if you can uphold the law, and if you cannot uphold the law, you can be put in contempt."
This is not entirely true. In those states you MUST tell the judge that the law contradicts your moral and ethical code and that you cannot uphold the law. However, the judge CANNOT punish you for "veto'ing the law as long as you told him before hand. Telling the judge beforehand that your moral and ethical code contradicts the law may nullify you becoming a juror. This is a cheap way to spike the pot in the judges favor and undercut the very idea that makes trial by jury work.
Also:
California Grand jurors, under Penal Code, Section 919(c), have a MANDATORY DUTY to investigate judges when they have been accused of corrupt misconduct while acting as a judge. Moreover, the grand jurors have the lawful power under Government Code, Section 3060 to accuse any judge, which appears to the grand jury to have become corrupt in office.
Next time your California judge mentions jury nullification, you should mention THAT and see if he doesn't shut his hole. - pinab, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57dissent*
lynch* - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58Marijuana wasn't outlawed for the same reason as alcohol. It was outlawed because the paper industry owned magazines that gave them the strength to shift opinion. The idea of an inexpensive weed that made superior paper (and still would today, were hemp legal) was enough for them to cause a completely fictional outcry against marijuana, that eventually led to its criminalization.
Take a look at "documentaries" about marijuana dating before the 60s and 70s. "They" would have you think it was worse than heroin. Of course, at that point, it could be criminalized, causing a fatal "before it began" crush to any hemp paper industry, and leaving an opening in the rope industry that was easily filled by already successful cotton farmers.
Of course, now, imagine the financial implications of legalizing marijuana for a second. The tobacco industry would crash in a decade or two; they can't replace their cash-crop with marijuana, which can easily be grown by anyone with the dedication. The paper industry would have a serious upheaval as well, as a much more easily grown hemp crop replaces the deforestation.
While the hole in the paper industry would be eventually replaced (after a market drop), the gap in the tobacco industry would last forever, ending countless jobs and putting many stores (you know, the ones that really only pull a profit from cigarettes) out of business. Eh, just a thought. - thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43@KMye and djlosch
From wiki re: 2001 California case:
"In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law.[16] However, the ruling could not overturn the practice of jury nullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict."
It looks like the SC of Cali didn't forbid jury nullification, they just ruled that jurors must inform the judge "whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law." If it's in the Constitution, then it can't be handled individually by the States. The States have power over whatever ISN'T in the Constitution. IANAL but I remember that pretty clearly from other discussions and general law courses.
Not to mention that the wiki (which I'm not claiming is completely infallible, but it is a starting point) mentions nothing about jury nullification being illegal in any particular state. I just don't think that that's the case, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if anyone can provide some a link or two to something authoritative stating otherwise. - KoderOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40>>one of those lucky few to which marijuana has no effect whatsoever other than leaving a nice "burnt-ass" taste in my mouth...
That's like saying:
"I am one of those lucky few that don't get a hard-on when they see a nicely shaped woman's ass".
I pity you. - dime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Umm, I thought it was obviously fiction, and the point was to inform the reader of a legal concept they might not know about?
I mean, really, who talks like that. - HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Conservative != Republican. Why is this hypocritical?
- jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35I Jury Nullification is not permitted, than there is no point to even having a jury. If twelve people say "not guilty" for ANY REASON, and we allow the judge to say "clearly, he broke the law, and it was applicable, so he is guilty" a Trial by Jury did not occur, did it? No, we had a trial by judge.
- Leomarth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36Jury nullification actually exists. When I did grand jury, I always voted my conscience, which put me at odds with the jurors that voted strictly by the law, and what the asst DA told them. People thought I was doing it just because they were 40 and 50, and I was 27... "Young punk just causing trouble." But, I was voting my conscience under jury nullification.
- parax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I don't know what gave you the idea that "conservative" means "against marijuana". Conservatism is about traditional values, against change, doing things as they've always been done. Criminalizing marijuana is not traditional, it's fairly recent, only about the last 120 years. Compared to 6000 years of it being legal, 120 years of criminalization makes the legalization of marijuana the Conservative position.
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Since when is jury nullification illegal anywhere in the US? In the US, juries have absolute authority of the result of a criminal case. The law truly is irrelevant when it comes to the decision of guilt. They can choose to acquit even if the feel the accused actually committed the crime. That very right is what is supposed to keep jury trials fair. I wish more people knew about it.
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33@roosterjim2k2: You clearly didn't read the article.
- ChrisWickenscom, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure they dont keep records of what is said in the deliberation room let alone release them to the public.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Real Conservatives are for the Constitution.
How many people were in prison for voluntarily consuming something when the people who wrote the Constitution were alive? How many police did we have then?
Anything calling itself "conservative" and favoring a police state is just swinish Fascism with lipstick on. - John0877, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25i do believe that after the trial jurors can talk about it freely. they just cant while the trial is taking place.
- v3p0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Fully Informed Jury Association
FIJA's mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilties when serving as trial jurors.
http://www.fija.org - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Jury Nullification does exist as a right, and has been around for a long time... Read up on it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification - drdank, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Funny you should mention lynch mobs, as they show the dark flipside to Jury Nullification.
There are countless stories during the Jim Crow era where an entire town is witness to a black man strung up on a tree and set ablaze for looking at a white woman the wrong way, the perpetrators often were acquitted in spite of dozens, if not hundreds of witnesses. In the face of overwhelming evidence, justice and the rule of law is denied in favor of enforcing mob justice. - xili, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I was called for jury duty. The judge asked for everyone in the jury pool who believed in Jury Nullification to raise their hand. The few who responded (like me) were dismissed.
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -2/+20a lot of you guys don't understand and seem to be confusing jury nullification with voting not guilty. jury nullification is NOT simply the act of saying "the defendant is not guilty". a proper not-guilty vote is like saying "i don't think the state has presented enough facts under the law to say this guy is guilty, so i'm saying not guilty." jury nullification is like saying "i agree that all of the facts support a guilty verdict under the law. however, i disagree with the law, so i'm saying not guilty anyways." this is rampant in cases involving minor drug possession, statutory rape, abortion, assisted suicide, racial crimes, and other rather controversial issues.
some scholars say that jury nullification is a constitutional right (or even obligation), but as the above posters have noted, certain courts disagree. if you don't explain the reason why you are voting one way or another, there's no way the anti-nullification statutes can be enforced. so if you feel the need to exercise jury nullification, do so, but under no circumstances should you explain why.
also torts are civil lawsuits, particularly negligence. torts have little to do with jury nullification at all. one can exercise jury nullification in civil lawsuits, but the average person doesn't even understand most civil law, nevermind being able to disagree with it.
and finally, you don't need a unanimous vote on the jury. if you don't get one, it's called a "hung jury" which means the case must be re-tried. many times, the state will drop the case after a hung jury. this means even if you don't get everyone to agree with you, the defendant may still win. - KMye, on 10/12/2007, -24/+42I don't why dilosch is being dugg down; he's correct. Maybe some folks digg down anything they don't like, whether true or not? In California, this was decided by the state Supreme Court around 2001. What I haven't been able to find is whether anyone's taken anything to the federal court. If not, it's probably about time...
- republicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+181 prospective bum with a job = maybe 1000-2500 bucks in taxes to the FEDS per year
1 marijuana possession/less than an ounce = 500-2500$ min fine + court costs multiplied by a few hundred thousand
1 person locked up on drug related charges = 10-20k per year incarceration mulitplied by 80% of people in prison. Your tax money at work. Just think, the tax coming out of you check this week goes towards the up keep of a prisoner who committed a victimless crime.
Im sure you can do the math. - wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18qwhardyiv: What about judges and states that "hijack" -through deception or circumvention- the ancient precident of the people's right to judge the law? You are advocating against human conscience, freedom and dignity, and for authoritarianism and slavish obedience to the state.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19For violent crime, three strikes is a good idea.
Way too many things are felonies these days. Making marijuana a crime is itself a crime against humanity. - Nanite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Conservatives should just stop voting republican. The R's just don't have the platform for a real conservative any more. Personal freedoms and fiscal responsibility were chucked out long ago in favor of special interest corruption. Of course the only other place to turn is the libertarians, who are honestly unelectable for some reason.
- rzrshrp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19It makes you think of how little our rights of citizens are exercised.
- duke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22your. You were saying?
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Drugs are illegal because some stuffy rich people want them to be.
The cost of drugs would be less prohibitive if they were legal. This means LESS of those addicted homeless people would be homeless.
Marijuana isn't a drug by any but the MOST lenient description of the word. It's a technically common weed that grows everywhere and has extremely minor, non-addictive effects when consumed. Like drinking, it's dangerous if paired with driving. Unlike drinking, it doesn't horribly damage a person's sense of right and wrong. IT was illegalized for the profit margin of the paper and magazine industries. You obviously are just repeating what you've always been told because an informed anti-drug activist never comes from that kind of angle.
This case is a nice way of showing how we have to use our rights or they will be taken from us forcefully. - ThatGirlTasha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@ebfoxbat
"If Raymond Dillard could so easily sway the jury, why couldn't Saunders defense attorney?"
In most cases the judge will not only hold back info on jury nul. he will also disallow any comments on it, or any judging of the law from the defense attorney, sometimes with the threat of contempt. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Wonderful story, sounds like fiction though.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2012 Angry Men remake?
- cupofworms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20That's what I'm saying. This sounds like a creative writing for sure. Besides, what's the moral of the article, a jury acquitted a pot smoker or juries can judge the law? And I know you can talk about a trial after the verdict but who quoted him saying that all word for word. And finally, when they mention how he was a small man with a straight back and strong eyes and crap, thats a writing assignment.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16We have 3 strike laws. The supreme court said they're not "cruel and unusual".
Your third strike in certain types of crimes in certain states (almost always drug-related) will get you a sentence that is truly horrible. In a 3-strikes state, you get 20 years mandatory minimum (depending on the wording) the 3rd time you're caught with a single joint on your person, even if each time there were mitigating circumstances involved. Yes, people kill and get 2 years probation, do it again and get 2 years in prison.
Mandatory minimums are something they don't let the public know about that much because the average case puts a person in jail a lot longer than deserved. It's a "scare, then neutralize" tactic that really doesn't belong in the US... but with all the people all about "be tough on criminals", it's been decades since punishments "only" fit the crimes.
Fwiw, hacking into a computer can get you 15-20 years on first offense if prosecution pushes it. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Now -that- should be illegal. The supreme court is self-contradictory in deciding that the right is strongly held and also deciding that the judge can claim otherwise and discriminate against those who believe in that right.
That's what happens when you have to follow precedent that you don't like. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@ dime
Reads like fiction, submitted to Digg like fact. - hikaruzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@novagenesis
"Marijuana wasn't outlawed for the same reason as alcohol."
Arguably, marijuana was outlawed for various reasons. You're right that it's a threat to the paper industry, as well as the textile industry, oil industry, tobacco industry, rope industry, and potentially many more.
Perhaps the words I was looking for were, "Marijuana was outlawed in the same manner as alcohol."
@actorboy
"I don't think rooster was implying that marijuana is bad because it's against the law, I think he was making the point that the defendant faced prison for legal reasons and not political reasons as suggested by the parent comment."
He said, "But stop blowing the pothead crybaby whistle ... enjoy your weed if you want... but you have no cause for complaint if you get caught and prosecuted."
That suggests to me that just because it's illegal I must have no cause for complaint, which is wholely untrue. I didn't intend to argue political reasons vs. legal reasons (although that certainly is arguable). :) Legal consequences considered, that doesn't mean it is right -- but certainly it must be "right" in his mind if nobody is to have any complaints about it, therefore insisting that pot is bad because it's illegal. - LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15So don't admit to your belief in nullification until AFTER you are seated on the jury. That is not illegal.
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14umm... more than likely he will be on a jury again at some point. There is a reason nothing said in the deliberation room is released.
- Pushkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Here is one that did 17 years for probation violation smoking a joint
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2954055&page=1 - ckoehler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Fiction or not, very thought provoking and worthwhile. I imagine that this type of thinking could be put to good use in many cases involving many other ridiculous laws. Spread the word!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 327 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is