digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

“I Don’t Care What the Judge Said!” Marijuana user found Not Guilty

theconservativevoice.com — Juries in the United States have the power to effectively change law. In this case against a man for his 3rd possession of marijuana, a brave jury member stands up for marijuana users everywhere and convinces the jury to give him a 'not guilty' verdict.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • irie, on 10/12/2007, -181/+7Hey, uhh wa happened after the third paragraph monz,
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -51/+6If Raymond Dillard could so easily sway the jury, why couldn't Saunders defense attorney?
    • mrfoos2, on 10/12/2007, -108/+11"Happens in Boston Legal all the time thanks to Alan Shore's wit."

      You mean thanks to the liberal agenda writers, right? It's just a TV show.

      Maybe we could use this technique to keep business people out of jail for not paying taxes.
    • 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.
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -50/+109um, 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".
    • 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...
    • 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
    • Firehunter, on 10/12/2007, -31/+3Wrong reply button :(
    • 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.
    • KMye, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17http://homepage.smc.edu/sindell_steven/AJ3%20Folder/Currentevents/aj3.jury.nullific.html

      Legal times
    • Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8...so this could also be applied to any/all **AA trials or no because those would be civil?
    • 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.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@KMye
      From your article:

      "The court acknowledged that in criminal cases, juries may continue to nullify the law unless the judge discovers it before a verdict. Although a judge can throw out a guilty verdict if it was not supported by the evidence, a jurist has no authority to override a verdict that favors a defendant.
      Monday's decision, however, is likely to deter nullification because a new jury instruction 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, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Karl S. Mayer. "

      Looks like it's ultimately up to the judge, and there may be a difference between criminal and civil cases. Still, though, it would appear that jury nullification is still alive and well in CA, it's just likely to be overturned. Either way, I think it's something that the SCOTUS should deal with. Eventually I'm sure they'll have to.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • SambekZX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Jury nullification is always a possibility in Illinois. However, a criminal defendant may not instruct the jury to nullify the law. Rather, if the defendant doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, he should come up with an argument that would evoke sympathy or compassion from the jury for the slim chance that the jury will nullify.
    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -38/+5This story is a plant.

      The writer wants people to become familiar with the idea of jury nullification so they can use it as a tactic in their war against abortion. Just go to their home page, this story is in the commentary section directly above one named "Suicide Bombers and Abortion" which equates two.

      Maybe you people need to lay off the weed for a little while.
    • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@djlosch You have to consider the fact in that case it was also just one person who was stalemating the jury because he believed the law was incorrect. True Jury nullification takes the entire panel to vote not-guilty. In this case other jurist complained to the judge and the man was thrown out. Its actually acceptable to throw out a jurist who shows significant bias when other jurist complain. So this wasn't a real case of nullification anyways.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4Too bad jury nullification is illegal in some states, because that's the first law I'd nullify if I were a juror.
    • thegetch1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Quoted from that wiki link: "Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented." What these guys are doing is not this case at all. There is no disagreement concerning what the law is. The judge and the jury all agree that it is ILLEGAL to be caught with possession of marrijuana. They disagree on whether or not it SHOULD be law. Therefore, the jury is stepping outside its Constitutional bounds by "rewriting" law rather than interpreting it. If they disagree with the law, run for Congress and try that way. Manipulating the system to suit your personal beef against a government that protects your inalienable rights to freedoms and liberties is dispicable. This is why we need tort reform. BURIED.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12djlosh,

      jury nullification is not illegal in California or anywhere in the U.S. To say it is, is laughable. It's a citizens right to disagree with laws that are against your opinion, judgment, or conscience. I live in California. Every time I'm called for jury duty I make it clear that I cannot support most laws and/or the way people are punished instead of rehabilitated. I've never had a problem with this and if I did, I would take legal action against whatever judge or attorney tried to squash my rights.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@thegetch1

      Running to congress, as you put it, will not work and that is why we need jury nullification. We have now had several cases where the federal government misused the commerce clause to interfere in purely intrastate business. Despite the fact that the states have allowed some use of marijuana and that the use was taking place completely within state lines and within state laws, the federal government still sees fit to butt in. This is not only a waste of time and money, it is an abuse of the constitutional rights given to the legislative branch of the federal government.

      We can not simply go to congress and ask them to rewrite the laws because private interests got in too deep too quickly. If you do some research, you will see that they have used circular legalities to keep marijuana from ever being legalized. Even if we could get the FDA/DEA/NIDA/HHS to all agree to reschedule marijuana, it couldn't happen because the US has signed a treaty to keep their drug control laws in line with those of the UN. This shouldn't be an issue since the US breaks or ignores UN treaties all the time. The problem is that this is one of the treaties that the US helped form and push through. Now the UN can not change their drug control laws because of influence from the US and the US can not change their drugs laws because of UN treaties.

      As you can see, on this issue jury nullification is now not only the easiest way, it is the only way to take the power back to the people and away from private interests.
    • Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@dracostimpy
      "Too bad jury nullification is illegal in some states, because that's the first law I'd nullify if I were a juror."

      Whoa. You just blew my mind!
    • joeTaco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4replied to the wrong post, digg me down
  • caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -78/+17It only takes one voice of decent to quell a clinch mob.
    The millions of political prisoners in this country prove that this is rare exception......


    • 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.
    • pinab, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57dissent*

      lynch*
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -125/+20Politcal prisoners? Really?

      Its against the law. Its well known that its against the law. Until the law changes, people can expect to be held accountable for breaking it. It's not a matter of whats right or wrong, its a matter of clearly defined rules. breaking said rules (and getting caught) has consequences.

      Im on neither side of the argument, in fact, im one of those lucky few to which marijuana has no effect whatsoever other than leaving a nice "burnt-ass" taste in my mouth...so I dont care about its legalization or not. If enough people wanted it legalized it would be, during the last elections a few states even put the issue up to a public (popular) vote, all but once failed, and the one that passed (Alaska) wasn't full legalization.

      If you want to do something as political dissent, or just because you like it, then fine. 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.
    • m5wr1th, on 10/12/2007, -35/+7Try learning a bit more about grammer and spelling before going off on a rant.
    • omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33@roosterjim2k2: You clearly didn't read the article.
    • 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.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -88/+11Corrosion,

      Your comparing the right to smoke weed with the holocaust...nice...

      Not only is the logic in that argument stupid as hell, but youre reducing the attempted murder of an entire race to the same level as smoking weed, which is insulting to say the least.

      A law requiring you to assist in muder is completely different than a law forbidding you from smoking something. The audacity of your statement has literally disabled my ability to come up with a logical argument...
    • 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.
    • ZebraCrew, on 10/12/2007, -24/+5I agree with rooster about corrosion's comment, bad form.

      although that really sucks that weed doesn't get you high, rooster
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6ksponge, do some research.

      There is a percentage of people who's body does not metabolize THC...im in that percentage. It has spillover effects too.... some other (prescription and non) drugs have lower effects on me as well.
    • 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.
    • CAvenger, on 10/12/2007, -24/+19"There is a percentage of people who's body does not metabolize THC...im in that percentage."

      Sounds to me like you're just being a bitter, whiny little bitch.
    • 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.
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ hikaruzero

      "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."

      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.
    • Firehunter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@Nova

      I tend to agree with your statements, but find one possible error in your logic. If marijuana were to be legalized, the government would definitely place regulations on it. The tobacco lobbyists are too strong to avoid that. Therefore, homegrown weed would still be illegal. This would prevent the collapse of the tobacco industry. Please also remember that the major addiction to cigarettes is the nicotine, so a good portion of smokers would continue to purchase cigarettes.

      On a side note, I really don't care whether or not marijuana is legalized (Just keep it away from me, don't pressure me to use it, and don't drive while under the influence of it). I have never used the stuff and never will, but what people want to do in their private residence is no business of mine.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"Therefore, homegrown weed would still be illegal. This would prevent the collapse of the tobacco industry."

      Sorry? This is strictly unconstitutional. You cannot restrict the civilian creation of a public domain product just to give a corporation a monopoly on it.

      They -could- decriminalize it, and only prosecute growers. Then the tobacco companies could grow it overseas, transport it legally and sell it in specific locations. The problem is the slippery slope. Once it's decriminalized, if laws remain to prosecute non-commercial growers, it'll become a legal political issue.

      "It's legal to smoke it, but not to grow it. You're favoring big tobacco. We know you're in their pockets."
      It's one thing to take a check from someone. It's another thing to litigate the forming of a monopoly.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@nova

      "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."

      Why do people think this? It's propaganda to believe that if MJ is legalized everyone who smokes will 'swarm' to it. At first, numbers would be larger out of curiosity but these would fade after a while. There is a certain percentage of society that desires an altered reality from time to time. I imagine the numbers would be similar to alcohol use (but smaller).

      MJ and cigarettes are two different buzzes.

      It's legal to grow tobacco in limited qualities. Granted MJ is probably much easier to grow, but you see my point. Not everyone is going to want to harvest their own. Tobacco companies have that ability already. Add to that their distribution network and you can see they would definitely benefit from it being legal.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@sambone67

      Propaganda? Really? Sorry, but everyone I know who smokes both agree that cigarettes are pure addiction. I've known people who quit cigarettes for the entire time they were pot smokers. The cigarette industry exists purely on addiction and peer pressure, and they know it.

      Cigarettes are easily attainable and a "light" drug, so it's the easiest thing for a teen to end up taking. I hate to view it in "what drug will my teen try" since I'll likely be a parent soon, but face it, MJ has a "better" buzz and is not physically addictive...

      And while many would buy pot, the prices would have to be kept lower.
      If pot were legal, many could undercut big tobacco, 100% of the time OR have a higher quality 100% of the time.

      If MJ were legalized, I have no reason to believe people -wouldn't- swarm to it. Over decades, it'd easily replace the "teen drug of choice". It has the fewest long-term effects; it is the easiest to produce on your own; it has a very straightforward 'you feel really good, a little dizzy, a lot hungry, and lose short-term memory' setup, which helps people with mental problems (enough that if you have slight mental problems, it's a safe drug of choice).

      I know a guy with an RX for it (he lives in cali) for bipolar. Its side-effects are so little that he (and some doctors he knows) would love if it were available OTC for "the blues" and minor depression. I think that's a little far, but everyone gets "the blues" and many of those people would love to feel good and deal with their minor issues at the same time.

      I don't know one smoker who smokes for any reason other than "I can't quit". Not one. Eventually that'll die if there's alternatives that are safer and "cooler"

    • strabes, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2@CorrosionX: Your analogy is flawed. Even though I think marijuana should be legalized (from an individual rights perspective,) it currently is not legal and therefore anyone who gets caught smoking or possessing it needs to be punished. We can't have juries declaring criminals not guilty simply because they disagree with a law.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12To all the people who are saying that because marijuana is illegal, people have to be punished reguardless of the value of the law or the fairness of the punishment, here are some examples of what you are advocating:

      1 Speeding. I see dozens of poeple do it everyday. Most of them don't hurt anybody but, occasionally someone dies. Do we have SWAT task forces waiting on th side of the road to storm people who break the speed limit? No. Why? Because cops have to come up with a realistic balance of their ability to enforce the law, the potential for harm of not enforcing the law and the return to the police for enforcing the law. If everyone who broke the law had to be punished, there would be no police left to do anything other than hand out traffic tickets and millions of people would be in jail for repeat offences.

      2. Taxes. Tax laws are so confusing that some politicians can't even figure them out. Every year we have billions of dollars go uncollected because of legal loopholes and lack of resources to go after the evaders. Could we go after and collect all the legally due taxes? Yes. Why don't we? Because a lot of these corporations have sections of the government in their pockets and if we started truely enforcing these insanely complex laws, businesses would almost always fail.

      3. Subjectivity and double standards. The simple claim that when someone breaks the law they must be punished is both over-simplified and naive. If I walked down the street and shot a man right now, it would be murder. If I was a secret operative in another country and I assassinated some guy by shooting him on the street, it wouldn't count because no one would ever know it happened. If I was smuggling tons of heroine from Europe to NYC, I would be put in jail for life or given the death penalty. When the CIA was doing it after WWII, they had government approval. Before you go painting situations in black and white terms, realize we live in a very grey world.
    • joeTaco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@novagenesis
      "I don't know one smoker who smokes for any reason other than "I can't quit"."

      That's the point. Cigarettes are physically addictive; weed isn't. Therefore, no matter what happens, people will keep smoking tobacco.
    • adeadwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Woah why is everyone digging Rooster down just because he said something they don't like. He had a fairly decent argument and rebutted the guy who could only make a joke about a argument with an explanation. Bad form diggers bad form...
    • accelleron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Try learning a bit more about grammer [sic] and spelling before going off on a rant."

      The irony here is palpable.
    • accelleron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6 "Your comparing the right to smoke weed with the holocaust...nice..."

      This says nothing.

      "Not only is the logic in that argument stupid as hell, but youre reducing the attempted murder of an entire race to the same level as smoking weed, which is insulting to say the least."

      Backing away from the moral implications of this, it is in fact a valid argument: people break laws they disagree with. There is nothing insulting about it, these are just two examples of laws which a significant number of people find contemptible enough to break.

      "A law requiring you to assist in muder [sic] is completely different than a law forbidding you from smoking something. The audacity of your statement has literally disabled my ability to come up with a logical argument..."

      How, exactly, is it different? Legally speaking, the distinction between laws which require you to allow people to be murdered, and laws which allow federal imprisonment for 20 years for a victimless crime hold equal legal status, and have equal legal recourse to those dissatisfied with them, in theory. I.e. if the U.S. passed a law banning the sheltering of Jews, the law would have as much validity as current marijuana laws.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Its against the law. Its well known that its against the law. Until the law changes, people can expect to be held accountable for breaking it."

      I was not comparing smoking weed to the holocaust, I was pointing out that laws aren't always good because they are the law.

    • Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nova

      We're both on the same side of the fence here, I just felt you were a little short-sighted about tobacco and called you out. Your reply was good too, until the last line. I, along with many people I know, smoke both. Anyone who says they 'can't' quit simply hasn't found the right motivation 'to' quit'.

      I think you're missing one point. If MJ is legal it would be legal with the same restrictions as alcohol I imagine. That means no driving, no smoking in public (or at work), no public 'intoxication', you get the point. Now there are millions of workers (myself included) who like that smoke break during the business day. MJ isn't going to change that any more than the fact that I like a drink or two after a hard day. There are many different shades of 'buzz' each with their own time and place. Maybe I'm being short-sighted, but I've got 25 years worth of 'research' to base my views from.

      As far as it being the 'teen drug of choice', don't hold your breath. Teens are going to go for the newest drugs around simply because it's their nature to be different from the previous generations.

      Legalize it, time and resources spent fighting it could be put to so much better use.
  • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+120Anyone have a resource to prove this is a real and not just creative writing?
    • 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
    • Taorluath, on 10/12/2007, -21/+26I agree, this sounds like a mix between a Disney movie and a rant from a middle-aged guy living in his parents' basement who never passed the fourth grade. This is total crap.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2012 Angry Men remake?
    • modelcadet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"DISCLAIMER: TheConservativeVoice.com and TCVdaily.com accept no responsibility for the accuracy
      or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. The views expressed on this site are that of
      the authors and not necessarily that of TheConservativeVoice.com and TCVdaily.com. We run
      banner advertising, Google™ adwords, Kontera™ and stand alone emails in order
      to cover the operating costs of delivering the material."
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • karlyguy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11i agree it is creative writing. no one really talks like that, only internal monologue sounds like that. and the other people on the jury were there for 35days and only now get this guy to talk and then dont put up any considerable defences?

      i doubt the conservative authors of this article know this, but the same arguments they put forward in the article are made for Abortion rights. "its not up to the government to decide what i choose to do with my body", and "if you make it illegal then i will break the law to do it".
      case: Province of Quebec vs Henry Morgentaler (sp) - 3 times the jury refused to find Dr.Morgentaler guilty even though he admitted to giving abortions. his primary defence was that women who had to break the law got the 'back-alley abortion' that was worse than him giving a safe alternative, so let the safer alternative be available.

      i agree with marijuana (sp) decriminalization. its just like cigarettes, gives a buzz and smoke in your lungs, shouldnt be illegal based on that.
      alcohol and prohibition existed because at the time it was a social no-no to be a drunk, alcohol was viewed as a sin, it wasnt because drunks were killing people.
      theres the difference between the laws about drugs and guns, vs marijuana and alcohol, drugs and guns are restricted based on how lethal they are to the public.
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@ dime

      Reads like fiction, submitted to Digg like fact.
    • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yeah, this has been posted in a way that would mislead you to believe it is fact, when I think it is completely obvious that it is fiction. This is why I feel it is "creative writing" as you put it:

      The protagonist is inanely well-spoken, the speech is unnatural, and the other characters fall into place far too quickly considering the prejudices many have about marijuana. It has an very strong and obvious bias, and the last sentence is the cheesiest thing I've read in a while:

      "Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American."
      Psssshhh...
    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This whole article smells of something awful. It is in the commentary section of a right wing news blog, just above an article titled 'Suicide Bombers and Abortion' which draws parallels between Terrorists and Pro-Choice people. Something strange is going on with this article.

    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"And they all lived happily ever after. THE END"

    • donolsen1155, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree that, it's creative writing...

      "What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now..."

      Although there are mistakes made, SWAT teams do not just bust down doors looking for drugs without warrants legally.
    • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The benifit of getting people to know about their rights and the laws is worth much more than one guy getting off the hook, this time.

      Defintatly fiction, he could have written it a bit less creatively...
      PROTIP: don't have everything that the characters do in quotes.
      PROTIP: don't make a golden hero figure that corrects everything in under 20 minutes, while spouting facts, figures and all in quotes.

      also what the hell is this - va!ue
  • ChrisWickenscom, on 10/12/2007, -7/+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.
    • John0877, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24i do believe that after the trial jurors can talk about it freely. they just cant while the trial is taking place.
  • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3This is a brilliant story. As a nutty left-winger I'm putting this site on my RSS feeder, ***** everyone who thinks government isn't taken over by the nutty 25% (12.5% from each side!).

    Though now that I have read the "About us.." page...not so good. I'll give the site a month if it becomes too "...but what about the children!"
  • trevbork, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4“The fact are clear as day, aren’t they?” --Wonderful grammer don't you think?
    • sparkie, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9Yea, the grammar is as good as you're spelling.

      - Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones.
    • duke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22your. You were saying?
    • Hervard, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Owned.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13He missed an s while typing. Calm down. I've been known to be a grammar nazi on many occasions, but this is a bit overboard.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The irony is, sparkie's grammar is technically correct.

      Yea, the grammar is as good as you are spelling.
  • willdiggforfood, on 10/12/2007, -31/+4Ah, I bet this brought an orgasm to all the little liberal newbies here.
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11especially since it's on such a right-wing web site...but I guess you just proved how open minded us lefties rae :)
  • Leomarth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Jury 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.
    • gwhardyiv, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2Grand jury and trial jury are two completely different entities, with major differences existing between the two.

      Anybody who thinks they are doing American justice a favor by hijacking jury deliberations because they disagree with a law is delusional.
    • wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17qwhardyiv: 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.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Anyone who thinks that the people of America are not the ultimate check and balance don't understand the fundamental ideals behind this country.
  • bootle, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8They should be convicted for their crap website, at least wrap your goddamn text!
  • osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Wonderful story, sounds like fiction though.
    • rzrshrp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19It makes you think of how little our rights of citizens are exercised.
    • metafore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3yeah, this is called a "hypothetical story." buried as inaccurate for misleading headline.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Kind of sounds like "Mister Smith Goes To Washington", doesn't it?

  • hodad, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8are you kidding? "I did a little research on juries before I was selected..." ?
    This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on this site.
  • DeathToAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"Juries in the United States have the power to effectively change law."

    Can the people do this too?
    • Zoyx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Nope. Only the people's elected representatives can.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes people can cahnge the laws in many ways. Writing to reps and protesting are some of the ways. Jury nullification, while extreme IMHO, is another.
  • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6Conservative website?
    Legalize Marijuana article?
    Hypocrites?
    What?
    Im confused. My brain is going to explode.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Conservative != Republican. Why is this hypocritical?
    • 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.
    • Nanite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Conservatives 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.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Real 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.
    • phmfthacim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@parax,
      when we hear of conservatism, we are usually hearing a reference to the conservation of cultural/social traditions over shorter periods (i.e. several generations).
    • indorock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i was as confused as you are...not that i think that conservatives are by definition anti-drug, BUT they have always promoted so-called "family values" and ethics which are usually in line with Christian morals. And, at least if we are to believe the PSA's from the last 30 years, smoking pot destroys the fabric of family values. Or something.

      Still, there is such a thing as a progressive conservative. Which is presumably what the author of this story could be considered.
      And as far as Christian morals go, i think the bible does mention something about god giving man all the plants on the earth to be used to our benefit.
    • dcmjzero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@phmfthacim
      several generations ago it was legal.

      @indorock
      "progressive conservative" sounds like an oxymoron. how about "classical conservative?"
  • Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1He'll never be on a jury again. Going against the status quo is a no no, even if they are wrong.
    • 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.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You missed the part about this being a hypothetical situation didn't you?
  • jwmcguire3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7This is GREAT!! we need more cases like this to help appeal the anti-marijuana laws.
  • eyeaml337, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5he who - the story is FAKE
    • KMye, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The story is a story...obviously so
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The story is fiction but the message is real. Your beleifs matter. The American people are not sheep who bow down to what those in power tell us. A government of, for and by the people is one of the bases of this country.
  • v3p0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Fully 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
  • scabbers, on 10/28/2007, -2/+11It reminds me of the amendment song from The Simpsons:

    I'm an amendment to be.
    Yes, an amendment to be.
    And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me...
  • Quickbreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Site's down.

    http://duggmirror.com/political_opinion/I_Don_t_Care_What_the_Judge_Said_Marijuana_user_found_Not_Guilty/
  • 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!
  • HollowGrind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7err thats so obviously fiction ?

    i mean cute little story but thats it *raises eyebrow*
    • silverchrysalis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, the names have that made-up ring to them:
      Jimmy Saunders,
      Raymond Dillard,
      and how 'bout that John Straun, with his firm mouth and wide brown eyes? sounds like a line from a cheap romance paperback...
  • jacko1990, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There are many elements of fictional writing in this. Too much to probably go over here. But it is nonetheless a good inspirational story that reminds of of what our rights are - or what they would be if we were placed in a similar scenario.
  • 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
    • c_2_g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I can't believe the horrible treatment the poor guy got over the rich guy. Simply terrible. We seriously need reform on this!
    • silverchrysalis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7yet a rapist can get off sometimes with serving just 2-5 yrs if first offense... go back out and do it again.

      sick
  • Sultan47, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Looks like we are gaining support for bong hits for jesus.

    Luckily for OJ juries can do this.

    Hit the sheba
    http://www.bongofdestiny.com
  • celerityfm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Jury nullification, ahhh how I wish I knew thee when I was once a foreperson (olo?) on a jury. The judge and the prosecutor both gave instructions to the extent that if the law says X and the you think the evidence says X then you MUST FIND the defendant guilty of charges for X.

    In this case you had a guy who was a passenger in a car with a guy who he thought was shady and figured the car might be stolen. The cops pulled the car over and he took off running- he said it was cos he said he had some weed in his pocket. Now, according to the law in the state I was in for this, simply being a passenger in a stolen vehicle that you know to be stolen EQUALS grand theft auto. WTF right?

    I felt like my hands were tied thanks to the harsh and oppressive language the prosecutor and judge used before we broke for deliberations- even though I thought the law was *****! Thankfully we ended up having a dissenter- and we were only able to find for a lesser charge, one that actually makes sense for the evidence, which is "trespassing in a conveyance"- that is, knowingly being inside someones car that is not yours, not necessarily stealing it though.

    The guy cried when the judge read our verdict. They handcuffed him in front of us to take him out of the courtroom. He apparently got a couple nights in jail, and got arrested the next week after he was out-back in court again for something else.

    The other thing that stuck with me was that we saw the defendant before the trial- he was dressed in street clothes sortof, and the public defender arrived with a suit for him to wear. I thought it was such a nice act of charity for them to do that, but we weren't supposed to have seen it done, so someone screwed up there. Ohh well. Such is life.

    So kids, moral of the story: DON'T GO RIDIN IN A JACKED CAR FOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • jpop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the cases I was on, the defendant was already dressed up in a spiffy suit and tie by the time we got there. I always thought it was funny seeing the mohawk/tatooed guy in the suit... Oh, especially since he was bald after the first day...
  • hrshgn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1320 years of prison for possession of marijuana? I hope I understood this wrong.
    • ZebraCrew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33 strikes... effective in many states.

      however, i don't know about the mandatory minimums in any of those states
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15We 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/+11Zebra:

      I just got this out of Wikipedia.

      California's 3-strike policy is a 25 year mandatory minimum PER STRIKE after 2. Further, once a person has two strikes, the law mandates trying them for the felony version of any crime that can be tried as a misdemeanor.

      They passed an amendment to their constitution that factors out nonviolent drug charges (putting the person in rehab instead), but here's a few extreme cases of that.

      Leandro Andrade was sentenced to 50-to-life for shoplifting 9 videotapes. It apparently counted as third and fourth strike (not sure what the convictions were), because the first two were armed robbery.

      Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for stealing 4 chocolate chip cookies. "(previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon)"

      Fun little law that.

      Btw, all references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18For 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.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A friend of mine got 2 years in prison for possession of a quarter ounce and a pipe when he was 19. He served both of those years too.
    • jpop, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Tip, if you've got 2 strikes against you, walk the straight and narrow. People like to moan and groan about how they got sent up the river for a minor third strike. But the first two strikes are what set the stage for it.
    • phmfthacim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5***** you jpop, you self-righteous *****.
    • jpop, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2True, but if you've got 2 strikes for armed robbery and aggravated assault, you either change your ways or you suffer the consequences. People like to concentrate on the stealing cookies and ignore the robbery and assault that got them to that stage in the first place.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Is this a true story or just fiction?
    • DooM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4This is (really bad) fiction.
    • kmb1794, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yeah, this story seems too much like 12 angry men to be true.
    • DooM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are people who think this story was well written?? Wow - easy crowd. There's a difference between a good point and good fiction, folks.
  • h3smith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I suggest you all read up on Lysander Spooner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner and his theories on Jury Nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    Interesting concepts that our FOUNDERS argued for, that juries be able to be the last line of defense and help get rid of bad law by "nullifying" it at the jury stand.


    But, if you are ever called up for jury duty and want to get out of it, when you talk to the judge just tell him you are an advocate of the right of jury nullification. You will be thanked for your time and asked to leave. You will never serve jury duty again.
  • 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
    • dRuNk3nIrIsHmEn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Step away from keyboard. Read post. Turn off computer.
    • ruminate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Damn, I was getting all excited and hoping to be on a jury soon. Too bad.
  • RediWhip4545, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=198325969631851603&hl=en

    This is a must watch video about Corpus Delicti and the necessary elements of a crime. The video explains that without the loss, harm or injury there is no crime. These statements are backed up by court rulings discussing Corpus Delicti.

    This drug law is just a thought crime and needs to be gotten rid of because there is no Corpus Delicti.
    • hottyson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, I agree. I have never smoked cannabis but prohibition is wrong. Your logic makes complete sense taking from these lines of the story:

      "These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop."
    • sipsyrup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1youre thinking of torts.
      many crimes are torts, but not all torts are crimes.
    • coreoption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I watched/listened to the majority of it.
      I wish people would listen to this and take it to heart.

      on a completely unrelated note, he reminds me of Christian Bale.
  • purplehaze420, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Even if it isn't true... Excellent story, could have been in a John Grisham
  • jdelamater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Jury nullification is built into the Indiana Constitution. Any jury can decide both the facts AND the law in Indiana, thus leaving a result like this possible in all jury trials.

    See Ind. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 19
    http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art1.html
  • PinkTacoDigger, on 10/12/2007, -20/+0Drugs are illegal because an addicted homeless person can't pay taxes. This case is a nice way of showing how a law if used properly can be beneficial to the the people. However, there's a huge area of abuse that can occur.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • p51d007, on 10/12/2007, -26/+0I'm outraged by what the jury did! They thumbed their noses at the LAW.
    Do I believe anyone in possession of marijuana should be locked up? NO.
    But, until such time as the LAW is changed, then some sort of "punishment"
    must be handed out. What needs to happen is decriminalization of marijuana
    laws. For a simple possession charge, make it a fine & costs. Unless you
    are caught with several tons of marijuana, slap them on the wrists.
    The jury should be ashamed of itself. Yes, I agree with the principles of why
    they did what they did, but, to just throw out the law because they didn't like
    it is simply irresponsible!
    • lazza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If you decriminalise marijuana, why should posessing it carry a "fine & costs" charge? It wouldn't be a crime to smoke it.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Jury Nullification is a constitutionally supported idea, accepted BY the founding fathers, as a legitimate means of destroying a law. It's critical to how Prohibition ended. While not explicitly designed in the constitution, it's implicitly designed in how a juror can vote "guilty" or "not guilty" without fear of consequence for any reason they choose.

      If they suddenly make a LAW illegalizing caffeine, many people so addicted would be unable to quit caffeine so suddenly, however right or wrong that law is. Are they then guilty enough to be put in jail? How about for 20 years minimum if they had SEALED offenses from a troubled childhood?

      A jury is the one and ONLY element of enforcable common sense in a court case. They add the one and ONLY human element to the law. The judge can mitigate or aggrivate a sentence, but only the jury can acquit or condemn. That means there is an inherent burden of common sense to prevent from ruining the life of an innocent person. (Innocent is not the same as "not guilty", but being guilty of a crime doesn't make you no longer innocent of wrongdoing.) There are extenuating circumstances, and usually the jury can decide them. The defendant is risking increased sentencing just to walk into the courtroom (we won't get into how fair/unfair -that- is). When you throw an extreme case OR an unjust law at the jury, it is their responsibility to weigh that situation.

      The jury does NOT consist solely of lawyers. A critical reason for that is that the jury is expected to decide on far more than just "the word of the law".

      You don't like that, go to a country that works differently. Just because a judge wants to tell you otherwise (and legally can), the right of jury nullification is critical and ever-present in the United States
    • republicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I guess you know how we changed the British Tax on tea. You got a country out of it. Sadly, laws are made by men with a wide variety of concerns other than freedom.
    • c0y0t3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Jury nullification is Democracy at its most fundamental level. Your peers get to decide if you did something wrong - the law is a guideline and the final arbiters are not judges, but Juries - this is why it is a fundamental responsibility of a citizen to participate in the justice system - it is the most important part of the process. The law is only the law until it is changed - and there are many unjust laws.

      In the small town in which I grew up, a law is (was) still on the books which states that it is illegal to operate a horseless carriage within the city limits. Obviously there was a point in time this was deemed appropriate by enough stuffed shirts to pass it, but it was never "overturned" just ignored into obscurity.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is a problem with your assumption. You think that is it is wrong for American citizens to decide whether a law is right or wrong. Why? Are you assuming that it is because they are too dumb or don't understand the legal system. Well they better since they are the basis for it.

      The people elect the represetatives that go to congress to create the bills that get voted on. The people (through an archaic system) then elect the president. The bills made by the a congress that represents the people, passes the bill onto the president, whom also represents the people, who vetos it or makes it law (or in Bush's case uses signed statements as unconstitutional, non-overturnable, line item vetos). These laws can then be challenged by a judge who is appointed by one or more of the groups that was elected by the people. All these systems are supposed to be set-up to keep any branch or branches from grabbing too much power and defying the people's will. If this happens, and it has, the people have the final say in the form of jury nullification and enforcement nullification (all those times the cops look the other way). This is a very good thing because if we didn't have that, all we would have is the ability to exercise our second amendment rights and I would really prefer we don't get to that point.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10In the United States, there are two sovereign classes: the states, and the people. Sovereignty means making decisions without being held accountable. Juries are an expression of the sovereignty of the people. They are therefore unaccountable in their actions. Attacks on jury nullification are in fact attacks on the sovereignty of the people--not merely an abrogation of civil rights, but a denial of the right to even have rights.
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Makes me ask. I know you don't have to take oath when answering questions...but don't they have the right to eject you from the jury if you LIED in those questions? Which is to say, if you try to exert that right?
    • jpop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For the two cases I've been called for, the judge never asked us about jury nullification.

      Of course, they weren't really situations that were amenable to it. Attempted rape/kidnapping/murder cases. Which is another thing that people don't really talk about much. Jury Nullification isn't applicable in a lot of situations.
    • c0y0t3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You don't have to tell them the reason you are voting as you are, you simply vote not guilty. You really don't have to tell them why. An unjust law precludes guilt.

      Don't tell the judge you believe in jury nullification. If they asked if you smoked cannabis, would you raise your hand (even if you did)? They don't give points for honesty, and they are not taking a poll; they are trying to exclude (or include) jurors to obtain a favorable verdict.
    • krebcycle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is illegal to lie to a judge during jury selection. I know, irritating and picky point but if we're following the letter of the law that's a fact. However, it probably was illegal of the judge to dismiss you unless jury nullification is not technically allowed in your state.
    • fyredragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@novagenesis "Drugs are illegal because some stuffy rich people want them to be."

      Just for fun, do some research and determine which political party controlled the legislative branch when the "stuffy rich people" made those in office bow and say, "Yes, my lord. A law making ________ illegal shall be crafted forthwith."

      Google a term such as *national drug control act* or something similar and work from there. You'll be amazed.
  • BadBoyNDSU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The story would be better if the page rendered correctly in Opera...
  • FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -25/+4Another stoner article brought to you by head camp at digg

    jeez i guess all you stoner's have nothing to do but sit around and find stupid stoner articles to digg,
    being as your all unemployed I guess I should be used to it
    • phillydrifter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"you're," not "your."

      As in, "you're an idiot."
    • Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I make a lot of money, and don't smoke anything. I believe in that particular cause from a fully ethical standpoint. I'm not the only one by a longshot.

      That's how Women's Suffrage started. Strangely, the persecuted part of society never can get the power to resolve persecution. It's all about sympathetic members of the majority.
    • mrchi03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...." Declaration of Independence.

      You know, maybe to you this is about stoners, marijuana, and drugs. But to many people here this is about constitutional right! If you cant see that, then you are as lost as the shmucks running this country.

    • ProfessorRiffs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Yeah because nobody else posts anything on digg ever. Just potheads and stories about weed.

      RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...........................................
    • airquotes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Aww, you want attention? If you're so bored go look up a list of famous smokers, you'll find the greatest minds of all time on that list.

      -I don't smoke anymore btw, just dont like assholes
    • r81984, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1When did people who like computers become stoners???
      Digg has too many criminals as members.
    • nathanwalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I do wake 'n bake daily, yet I am posting this from my work terminal. We find ourselves in a conundrum, boys.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Digg has too many criminals as members."

      The definition of criminal is someone who is guilty of commiting a crime. In the US all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. Unless people are posting to digg from prison, you're wrong.
  • ProfessorRiffs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm all for this article, but it reads like a piece of Penthouse magazine fiction. Is it a true story or just some made up stuff?
  • StrangeFamous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2w00t
  • Hmoobgolian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yes, finally a true American story. We are so caught up with terrorism, and pretty soon, if we don't start taking control of our rights, then eventually our government will start deciding what we can and cannot do. This is a great example of what it is to be "American", something that our founding fathers wanted. Great story!!
  • K1llerSe7en, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Very nice, maybe the government will finally realize that it is the PEOPLE who have the power.
    • nathanwalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Maybe the PEOPLE will wake up and realize that they have the power. That's what I am waiting on.
    • rocket000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so true, nathanwalker. the government knows we have power, and that's why it tries so hard to show us different.
  • maeon3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The juries refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical.
  • Tripw0l, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Great story. It was a little cheesey, but the moral has a true heart that should be important to all Americans.
  • r81984, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Everyone on that jury should go to jail along with the pothead.
  • hutectro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have been on many jury trial's and No judges have ever found juries contempt of court based on juries decision
    Judges don't want people to be afraid to serve on jury they want you willing to do it.
  • Hideokuze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Its a free country so that guy stood up for our rights here in the us so thats it
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Im all for marijuana being legal. But I just do not think this was true. Maybe it was because of the writting it just made it sound to staged.
  • shinobi25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Flat out the best and most informative article I have read in well over a year.
  • Mudb0y, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is a nice anecdote, but please, can't we get something that cites references? You know, actual facts?

    Truthiness is a work here.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do a google search, read the wikipedia article on jury nullification, I did my own research years ago and everything he says is true.
  • cipherscribe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Listen, marijuana has healthful benefits, people have been using it for years and people will continue to use it even though our current laws deem it illegal. There are tax paying, upstanding citizens who are daily smokers and they are some of the most laid back, intelligent people I know.

    Cigarettes are more harmful than marijuana and so is alcohol. Both are regulated by the government. Why won't they do the same with marijuana, since the prohibition of MJ was formed through racial bigotry?

    That question was rhetorical. They won't make it legal because there's too much money in prohibition from a DOJ point of view. It's really disgusting.
    • staticdisaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1any drug is harmful in excess. Saying alcohol is harmful contradicts every scientifc study I've read that says drinking a glass of wine or beer a day is beneficial to your health.
  • Killmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8the story itself is most likely false, but it raising awareness about jury nullification. I, for one, have never heard of this until now.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree killmaster. It is probably false. But it makes a good point.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.