Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MyFootHurts
Huge Member



Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 912 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kekistan
MyFootHurts
Huge Member
PostSat Oct 29, 2016 2:39 pm 
NacMacFeegle wrote:
Malachai Constant wrote:
Nat, while juries can be a pain they are also constitutionally required by the bill of rights. To get rid of them requires a constitutional amendment, not likely.
I realize that, but it's something that needs to happen.
I hope they do away with juries and you get falsely arrested and convicted with something and thrown in jail by some judge with sole authority to decide your innocence.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostSat Oct 29, 2016 2:45 pm 
Comey's FBI could not even put together a no brainier case. huh.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MyFootHurts
Huge Member



Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 912 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kekistan
MyFootHurts
Huge Member
PostSat Oct 29, 2016 3:09 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Comey's FBI could not even put together a no brainier case. huh.gif
No. Its actually all one big conspiracy of white privilege. Everybody who's butthurt about this verdict is non-biased, has all of the facts, were not influenced by sensationalism, and most of all they came to their decision without letting their political beliefs get in the way. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is white privilege.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
SKS
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Posts: 161 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snohomish
SKS
Member
PostMon Oct 31, 2016 7:07 am 
Klapton wrote:
NacMacFeegle wrote:
America's justice system is a farce, and this debacle is hardly the first example of its failings. Only the US makes routine use of jury trials, and many countries don't have them at all. We are the only ones dumb enough to think they are such a great idea. Juries are often biased and partial, and are susceptible to media an public influence. The secretive nature of the jury trial process prevents transparency, and the fact that juries often don't have to give a reason for their verdict is completely ridiculous. Members of juries may also not be able to fully understand scientific or statistical evidence. Juries should either be abolished, or the way jury trials work needs to be radically altered.
You are, without question, the most authoritarian person I have encountered on the internet. Is there any increase in the power of the state that you would not cheer for? Juries are one of the only remaining places where an individual can actually thwart the capriciousness and abusiveness of the state. Jury nullification protected the lives of many people who violated the Fugitive Slave Act. They were GUILTY. They DID help fleeing slaves escape. Juries saved them from prison when their so-called "representatives" were either unwilling or unable to overturn this heinously evil "law." The ability to serve on a jury, and perhaps save someone from ruin for a victimless crime, is one of the only reasons I bother to vote anymore. .
up.gif up.gif up.gif up.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostMon Oct 31, 2016 7:42 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Comey's FBI could not even put together a no brainier case. huh.gif
Hmm, I wonder "Which" case ol Malski is talking about??? I know which case I'd be talking about. LOL moon.gif

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Nov 01, 2016 7:25 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Comey's FBI could not even put together a no brainier case. huh.gif
I don't think you can lay this one on Comey. FBI collects evidence but prosecutor's decide what charges and how to pursue the case.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
cartman
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 2800 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fremont
cartman
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2016 3:28 pm 
NacMacFeegle wrote:
I wouldn't consider the abolition of the jury to be a particularly authoritarian thing. Lots of democracies either don't have juries, rarely use juries, or have more sensible rules for juries. The US is mistaken to cling to the use of juries like it does.
Well, if you want to change Article III Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to said constitution, you can read up on how to do that under Article V. In other words, not going to happen.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2016 3:43 pm 
I think jury nullification is a valuable and critical tool. I also am not sure that this case qualifies as jury nullification. Some jurors have said that they didn't think the actual charges were proven. I think that technically it is illegal. I knew somebody once who was a juror and was jailed for using it to force a hung jury in a case. If I remember correctly she publicly said in a newspaper that she had refused to convict because she considered the law to be wrong, and the judge threw her in jail in contempt despite not having asked her about jury nullification during jury selection. She was an activist on the issue of jury nullification so probably had been looking for an opportunity to use it. It led to quite a series of challenges and I don't remember what happened. This was years ago when I lived in Colorado. Like any such tool, it would be a bad thing if jurors used it lightly. Nullification should be available for important cases of principle. I know the occupiers considered this to be such a case, but I have not gotten the impression that that is why they were acquitted.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2016 4:35 pm 
NacMacFeegle wrote:
The secretive nature of the jury trial process prevents transparency, and the fact that juries often don't have to give a reason for their verdict is completely ridiculous. Members of juries may also not be able to fully understand scientific or statistical evidence. Juries should either be abolished, or the way jury trials work needs to be radically altered.
NacMacFeegle -- sometimes the degree of ignorance of history and social science that you display is mind boggling. The need for jury deliberations to be not for public consumption is a key aspect of helping the jurors to render a verdict based on the evidence presented and independent of any other considerations. If jury deliberations were made public -- all sorts of trouble can ensue -- e.g. the group madness that occurred in the Salem Witch Trials.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2016 7:54 pm 
cartman wrote:
Well, if you want to change Article III Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to said constitution, you can read up on how to do that under Article V.
I'm quite aware of the contents of constitution, it's amendments, and it's many flaws. What I was originally suggesting would indeed be a constitutional amendment.
Randyhiker wrote:
sometimes the degree of ignorance of history and social science that you display is mind boggling.
You mistake my difference of opinion from your own for ignorance.
Randyhiker wrote:
The need for jury deliberations to be not for public consumption is a key aspect of helping the jurors to render a verdict based on the evidence presented and independent of any other considerations.
Except that it is impossible in the modern age for jurors not to be influenced by things outside the court. In the case of the Bundy trial it would have been impossible for the jurors not to have prior knowledge and opinions on the subject, and they would have been heavily affected by influences outside of court. That their deliberations are not made public only serves to hide their biases.
drm wrote:
I don't think you can lay this one on Comey. FBI collects evidence but prosecutor's decide what charges and how to pursue the case.
I wouldn't be surprised if Comey had something to do with this, especially considering his poor handling of the investigation into Clintons emails. He's either trying to help the right wing, or is a total idiot.

Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2016 10:12 pm 
The reason for private deliberations and the protected right to vote one's conscience is to discourage retribution against jurors for their decisions. When government officials decide the outcomes of criminal trials rather than citizens, the result is tyranny. Every time. Nac LOVES him some tyranny though, so no surprise there.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Nov 02, 2016 11:03 pm 
I have to agree I have been in many trials where the jury was far wiser, knowledgeable, and more humane than the Court.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 12:21 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
I have to agree I have been in many trials where the jury was far wiser, knowledgeable, and more humane than the Court.
Really? In that case the jury's you've encountered had nothing in common with the Bundy trial! One of the big problems with juries is their tendency to be too "humane" - they let criminals off easy, or (such as in the case of the Bundy's) scot free!
Klapton wrote:
The reason for private deliberations and the protected right to vote one's conscience is to discourage retribution against jurors for their decisions.
And the cost is transparency and Jury accountability!
Klaptron wrote:
When government officials decide the outcomes of criminal trials rather than citizens, the result is tyranny. Every time.
A jury isn't necessary for a fair trial. As I pointed out before ours is not the only system, and in fact the US is the odd man out when it comes to juries. Other countries do just fine with less use of juries, radically different juries, and no juries at all. I doubt you even know what tyranny is - all you know is that it's something bad to do with government and so you associate it in your trollish posts with "big government", getting rid of juries, socialism, and all the other things you hate for no good reason in a lame attempt to discredit those who support them.

Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 12:28 am 

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostThu Nov 03, 2016 12:31 am 
I witnessed it in person while stationed in Berlin. I was there when a flood of people fleeing it made them take the Wall down. Were you even born yet, O font of wisdom?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Malheur Occupiers acquitted
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum