Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:1214 misc.legal:23596
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!midway!gargoyle!igloo!learn
From: learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sophistication of federal investigators
Message-ID: <3287@igloo.scum.com>
Date: 17 Jan 91 16:10:46 GMT
References: <1991Jan10.023821.15346@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Jan16.053029.3800@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal
Organization: Igloo, Public access Unix, Northbrook IL
Lines: 66

In article <3800@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes:

> In article <3277@igloo.scum.com> Bill HMRP Vajk writes:

>>In article <28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes:

> >> Jurors everywhere need education so as to find people "NOT GUILTY" 
> >> when they have committed no crime.

> >Juries are charged with determining whether an individual has violated 
> >laws, not whether a crime was committed. Unfortunately this distinction 
> >is lost for some large portion of our population.

> A jury's job is to determine whether a crime that deserves punishment was
> committed in criminal and civil cases.

I see the distinction is easily lost......

> >Should juries begin to vote based on conscience involving their personal
> >views of "crime" instead of following current proceedure, the challenges 
> >necessary to review the law itself would cease.
 
> The Jury is the FINAL arbitrer of justice.  As long as jurors know their 
> right to acquit, regardless of evidence, the ultimate check and balance 
> against an unjust law remains intact.

If this is true, then we can save all that money and do away with the entire
system of appeals and the Supreme court, with the exception of one justice to
administer oaths of office to high federal officials.

> Consider that in parts of Kentucky they have stopped trying to prosecute 
> people for growing marijuana since they can't get a conviction.

Right on, in Kentucky, and for right now. The rest of this point should be
obvious. 

> Our system of trial by jury has all the safeguards one needs -- as long as
> it's allowed to function as intended.  Currently it's hog-tied -- we have 
> laws which bypass the right to due process entirely, and a lack of 
> information in the jury box during courtroom proceedings.

Given that a trial is "by a jury of peers" you may not begin their civics
education in that jury box. If they need more education, it is as citizens,
from among whom they were selected as a representative subset.

> If the Jury knows their rights, and feels that a person is undeserving of
> punishment, then the expenses aren't necessary.  Appearing in court for 
> trial is sufficient.

So now we don't need attorneys any more either ? I thought you were the one
who was going to hold government agents at bay with your words till your
attorney arrived, give your attorney and the government backup tapes of
your system and then send them on their way still in posession of your
equipment.

We arrive quite rapidly at the question whether you'd enjoy the idea of
flying in a commercial airliner where you knew the pilot earned $ 20,000
per annum. Did you say you'd settle for a $20K per annum attorney ?

> A fully-informed jury ammendment, or failing that, full-page advertisements
> in every major newspaper, just might do the job. 

Right. Where are you going to put this in the papers ? On the sports page ?
Next to Heloise ? And just who will administer the quiz ?

Bill.etc