I think it was polite of you to be so considerate, but I don't think that jury nullification is off topic here. It is one aspect of the fundamental issue, which is how people should act when the law is wrong. Jury nullification is one act of civil disobedience which is protected by absolute legal immunity. This is why it is so terrifying to authoritarians when people realize the true nature of their protected freedom as jurors, and why they work so hard to brainwash citizens into believing that it is somehow wrong to act in moral accordance with that unlimited freedom.
I know we don't always agree on things, but I didn't think you had me on ignore.
How is this not the issue being discussed? Just to make it clear for those posters who didn't gather it, that was speaking from the authoritarian perspective, not mine.
And yes, I watched them.
That is reasonable. But how come you dont mention anyone on the other side of the issue being punished for breaking laws?
When you posted a thread about "a whole new story" I was really hoping to see some substantial new information. I was a little disappointed to be honest, as the clips seemed to be rehashing what was already known a while ago. Then again it doesn't hurt to keep this story in public consciousness even if there aren't any big new developments. This story may have been a PR priming for an upcoming appeal, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.You're not.
It wasn't that 'the issue' of civil disobedience wasn't discussed, but rather that the discussion didn't suggest to me it involved the content of the video clips.
I'm glad to hear you watched them. Hopefully you found them useful.
When you posted a thread about "a whole new story" I was really hoping to see some substantial new information. I was a little disappointed to be honest, as the clips seemed to be rehashing what was already known a while ago. Then again it doesn't hurt to keep this story in public consciousness even if there aren't any big new developments. This story may have been a PR priming for an upcoming appeal, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I support DeChristopher's goals and I think his actions were admirable, but I still think if he broke the law he has to be punished. What do you think should happen here legally?
Judge Benson explained to the court and to DeChristopher that were it not for DeChristopher's "continuing trail of statements" post-auction, he might have avoided prosecution and prison time. Judge Benson stated, "The offense itself, with all apologies to people actually in the auction itself, wasn't that bad."
And the authority for said oath is?...
Judges lie to juries all the time. As much as many want to ignore it, judges are not truly impartial. They are agents of the state, and also carry with them the many implicit prejudices of the profession of law.
From the judge's statement at the sentencing hearing (from wikipedia):
So it appears that the government went after him NOT because of his "wasn't that bad" crime but because he tried to draw attention to the cause he was pursuing. And if that's the case, then a fair sentence would have been 2 years, suspended, and possibly the same fine.
I do, however, see your point... I'd not be apposed to altering the system to consider all collateral issues as possible defenses and not mearly potential mitigators of sentence. I'd have to work on it though... :hmm:
Until that time, however, I maintain we must work within the system with all players playing according to the rules.
But what do you do if, by some perversity of nature, you can't help but consider collateral issues and can't help but feel they do mitigate the sentence. What if something about the way you view reality impels you to play by your own rules. Do you tell the authorities when you get a jury summons that you are by constitution, unable to comply with their wishes? What words do you say?
No. I require no authority to speak my mind. I do as I will and do not apologize for it. I find in that no basis for others to claim that reciting an absurd concoction of noises somehow constrains me.The authority is the same as the authority that grants you the right to speak your mind in an open forum. If you find the one you've found the other.
I don't agree that juries ought to perform as instructed by the judge because the judge's instructions are generally absurd. The courtroom is a bizarre comedy that a happy few see as such. You have such ridiculous instructions as "the jury will disregard [the thing that they obviously will not disregard]." I do not agree that the standard jury instructions are a faithful explanation of the juror's oath. A righteous jury must ignore the law when the law prescribes evil. To do otherwise is to "just follow orders".I infer from your posts that the only real issue between us is how affirmative defense [ I did it... but] is limited and, therefore, the role of the jury. IF the jury was allowed to consider all the issues then we'd agree that the jury ought to perform as directed by the judge and etc. but far more to consider.
The law is never blind. To believe that it is is to plug one's ears, cover one's eyes, and shove a live grenade up one's ass.It is in the bit about what ought to be considered by a jury that current law and your view differ... I assume you'd still agree with the terms of Brady v Maryland (sharing of evidence between defense and prosecution) and penalties that may be incurred for not doing so. But, beyond that I think I can see how it may be both moral and legally prudent to consider factors which brought the defendent to the bar.
I don't think it would unduly burden the system to allow the above since although it might triple the trial time there may be fewer cases brought to trial so a break even maybe...
But, Say a killing took place in oh... Alabama and one in San Francisco with all the same elements. And one of those elements was; the race of defendent is black and the race of the victim was white... In this day, I'd not think the fellow in Alabama would be gaining the same deference to what may have motivated the event as the fellow in San Francisco.... Assuming Juries act beyond their oath and the system is not yet blind. I suppose that would be true in any scenario but speaking to the expanded defense issue the benefit of that is not going to flow as desired, me thinks.
There is no way to amend the law to be able to deal with a government which deliberately breask the law with impunity. The law is only virtuous to the extent that the authorities who wield it are truly bound by it (which is, of course, never). This cna be approximated by totally separating the various powers and setting them at odds with each other, but there is need for more: powerful oversight by an authority not bound by law, but whose power is limited to the ability to say a definitive "No." (Law is only needed to ensure consistency when rulings are cumulative - i.e. legislative. An authority whose rulings do not create precedents does not need to be bound by precedent in order to keep its power from creeping.)I do, however, see your point... I'd not be apposed to altering the law to consider all collateral issues as possible defenses and not mearly potential mitigators of sentence. I'd have to work on it though... :hmm:
Until that time, however, I maintain we must work within the system with all players playing according to the rules.
edit: I said 'system' but meant 'law' in the second to last para.... sorry
I fail to see the relevance of this information to the post you were responding to or to what in general I have been arguing in this thread. I haven't even opined about what sentence he deserved or whether his expressed political views affected said sentence or the discretion of the prosecutor in charging him. I have but one opinion here: he shouldn't get a pass for breaking the law because his motives are laudable. That is all.
- wolf
It can create a slippery slope if it is publicized in high profile cases, and when it is advocated by people in the media or online. Jury nullification is a fact of the system. It doesn't need encouragement, and the act of encouragement invalidates the argument that there isn't a slippery slope. I'll just leave it at that.
- wolf
No. I require no authority to speak my mind. I do as I will and do not apologize for it. I find in that no basis for others to claim that reciting an absurd concoction of noises somehow constrains me.
I am bound by no oath. My yea is yea and my nay is nay. I do what I see as right and I ask nobody's permission to do so. When I am constrained by duress to utter nonsensical sounds that make others tremble with reverence I do so and I laugh little inside for I remember the absurdity of believing that words have power over me.
I don't agree that juries ought to perform as instructed by the judge because the judge's instructions are generally absurd. The courtroom is a bizarre comedy that a happy few see as such. You have such ridiculous instructions as "the jury will disregard [the thing that they obviously will not disregard]." I do not agree that the standard jury instructions are a faithful explanation of the juror's oath. A righteous jury must ignore the law when the law prescribes evil. To do otherwise is to "just follow orders".
The law is never blind. To believe that it is is to plug one's ears, cover one's eyes, and shove a live grenade up one's ass.
There is no way to amend the law to be able to deal with a government which deliberately breask the law with impunity. The law is only virtuous to the extent that the authorities who wield it are truly bound by it (which is, of course, never). This cna be approximated by totally separating the various powers and setting them at odds with each other, but there is need for more: powerful oversight by an authority not bound by law, but whose power is limited to the ability to say a definitive "No." (Law is only needed to ensure consistency when rulings are cumulative - i.e. legislative. An authority whose rulings do not create precedents does not need to be bound by precedent in order to keep its power from creeping.)
There was a time when grand juries were an effective restraint on prosecutors. This was effectively gutted by the 1946 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Prior to then every grand jury was a "runaway" grand jury. Government prosecutors were actually afraid of raising popular ire by embarking on malicious prosecutions like that of DeChristopher, because a grand jury could actually indict them. Today there is no effective oversight of prosecutors so you have gross abuses like the one in this thread. Malicious, overtly politically motivated prosecution with no purpose other than to cover for criminal activity at the BLM.
Prior to the castration of grand juries (and thus the effective death of an important fifth amendment protection), there were far more independent investigations into the conduct of government officials. Nowadays there are virtually no independent investigations, and when they do exist they are often independent in name only. Has human nature changed so much in 65 years that bureaucrats are perfectly virtuous and prosecutors are apolitical defenders of justice?
The extent to which our institutions are totally broken is largely why I don't get too bent out of shape about the details of procedural precedents. There are no checks on federal power to speak of. The fifth amendment has been completely gutted and (since the passage of the seventeenth amendment) there is no authority in DC with an incentive to slow the growth of federal power. As federal powers continue to expand, corporate influence will expand with it (for money and power are entwined in an eternal tango). As corporate influence seeps deeper into the machine, federal power will expand ever faster.
Law is no longer a tool of justice. True there is a handful of Democrats who rail against corporate influence, but they will become ever more marginalized from the center of power. Likewise for the handful of Republicans who rail against expanding federal influence will be mocked as crazy nutjobs (here talking about the small handful who actually oppose expanded federal power, not the majority who pretend to oppose it). The plot of the play is pretty obvious when you step back far enough to see the whole stage.
Sure it does need encouragement. It's Constitutional doctrine and ppl should know about it as much as they know thier civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
There are so many unjust laws on the books brought about by bought and paid for politicians I'd nullify about half of them. Any drugs case, prostitution or any other consensual crime - not guilty. Any mom who's 12 yrold son was Dling movies and forced into a statutory $200,000 fine, not guilty. etc.
BTW guys you'll never sit on a jury if you start spouting jury nullification. So no $36 a day. LOL I'll just leave it at that.
No. I require no authority to speak my mind. I do as I will and do not apologize for it. I find in that no basis for others to claim that reciting an absurd concoction of noises somehow constrains me.
I am bound by no oath. My yea is yea and my nay is nay. I do what I see as right and I ask nobody's permission to do so. When I am constrained by duress to utter nonsensical sounds that make others tremble with reverence I do so and I laugh little inside for I remember the absurdity of believing that words have power over me.
.
Sure it does need encouragement. It's Constitutional doctrine and ppl should know about it as much as they know thier civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
There are so many unjust laws on the books brought about by bought and paid for politicians I'd nullify about half of them. Any drugs case, prostitution or any other consensual crime - not guilty. Any mom who's 12 yrold son was Dling movies and forced into a statutory $200,000 fine, not guilty. etc.
BTW guys you'll never sit on a jury if you start spouting jury nullification. So no $36 a day. LOL I'll just leave it at that.
Guess I can start at the beginning :sneaky:
It seems you enjoy the benefit of free speech and proclaim that regardless of that guarantee you'd speak your mind even to the extent, I assume, that if that guarantee was not present and jail or worse was the consequence of such actions you'd still maintain your stance... I don't know if I'd be that brave in the face of what ever being in jeopardy might provide. I wonder if you were a signor of the Declaration of Independence how large would it be... the signature... an indication of one's fear of the consequence.
There are some oaths which are administered under duress. The current system of national and international law doesn't provide for free persons. I have no allegiance to country. (I do see value in some countries which stand for values which agree with my own. This causes my actions to often resemble those of people who believe in principled allegiance to "country".)Do you mean that you'd take an oath but not be bound by it? I presume so. I don't see that as doing right. I'd prefer not to participate than to swear to do one thing knowing I intended to do another...
Any person whose word is deemed more reliable due to the administration of an oath is not worth being believed in the first place. Reverence for oaths at most influences only the answers of liars. That being the case it is absurd to believe that an oath would make their word any more reliable. They are, after all, liars.I don't think the words have power over you but, rather, you have the power over you. The words tell others that that is true. There was a time when a person's word was a very important aspect of their character. I suppose your position is that there are more important or higher level aspects in life and regardless of the reliance any other person places on your word you'll be about what ever you feel is right regardless. But, I'd not assign to you that position on all events that require/request your word... I think you speak to governmental issues.
There are some oaths which are administered under duress. The current system of national and international law doesn't provide for free persons. I have no allegiance to country. (I do see value in some countries which stand for values which agree with my own. This causes my actions to often resemble those of people who believe in principled allegiance to "country".)
However in going about my daily business and attempting to most honestly represent my situation to the powers that be, I have found it convenient to alter the status of my paperwork. Were I given the option of being a person without country (and not being systematically persecuted for being so liberal minded). I would gladly have done so but I was told that the conjured authorities have decreed that I must be bound to one gang of thugs or another. Any oaths taken in the process are under duress and therefore are invalid - at least morally if not legally. (But law is of no moral force to me anyways so it's all good for quite a chuckle.)
Any person whose word is deemed more reliable due to the administration of an oath is not worth being believed in the first place. Reverence for oaths at most influences only the answers of liars. That being the case it is absurd to believe that an oath would make their word any more reliable. They are, after all, liars.
I on the other hand speak the truth in all cases except for the words contained in oaths themselves. I revere no power that can be invoked by words, so I can swear by nothing.
I live in California and it would appear that the jury oath a person takes confines him or her to only consider the facts of the case and not at all the right or wrong of the law itself. ... Are you clear in your own mind on this issue. Would you take the California oath and then judge on the justness or not of the law anyway?
"Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?"
I could recite those words without any misrepresentation of my intentions. The state put words together which occasionally contain in them a fundamental paradox. In those hopefully rare cases where a true verdict requires the consideration of more than the evidence presented and the instructions of the court I would do my best to render a true verdict, as that is the fundamental duty of a juror. I would do my best to abide by the entire oath but if there were a fundamental tension in the case making that reconciliation impossible in my judgment, I would render the truest verdict possible.