Comments on: Trial by Jury

By: no third solution » Blog Archive » It’s Not Voluntary, and It’s Not a Contract

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:12:12 +0000

[...] to pay is the slow creep of totalitarianism: the inconveniences and false arrests we suffer, the injustices in which we’re accomplices-by-duress, the atrocities of wars waged in our name, the violent oppression of brown-skinned foreigners, [...]

By: William

William — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:07:19 +0000

The injustice system is just another smoke and mirrors ploy by the powers that be to make ruling over us seem more “fair”.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:29:18 +0000

Unfortunately the voir dire process allows for prosecuting attorneys to effectively exclude anyone from a jury who might consider nullification. Combined with the view that's been argued elsewhere that the people who end up serving on juries tend to be a mix of the most stupid and those most inclined to support the prosecution, and nullification is effectively a dead letter.

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:44 +0000

I am reading a book about the English justice system. Interestingly, juries were first started by the English kings, and they were mostly composed of the king’s men. People were so scared of juries that they would rather die than go on a trial with jury (if they died, their estate would go to their family: if they were executed, as juries always found you guilty, your estate would go to the king).

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:40:44 +0000

Well, I enjoy a flamboyant line as much as the next writer, but I can quite frankly think of several “clearer principles of English or American constitutional law” than jury nullification.

And if one is going to go back to 1215, then let’s, um, go back to 1215: Laws from unelected monarchs, no lifetime-appointment of judges, no right to free counsel, no concept of judicial review, no appellate court structure to speak of, etc.

Times change.