Can crime ever be morally justified?

[Doer]

Just recently responded to jury summons. It's the first time I've had to sit through voir dire. I can tell that jury nulification is something they can only control with the selection challenges. They won't come out and say it. But, there were a lot of questions about civil disobedience, Occupy thisnthat.

Gandhi and MLK were discussed at length in such tricky ways. Some were dismissed for no other reason I could tell except from sympathy with protesting.

It was a Nordstroms shop lifting case. A Buddhist woman was dismissed because she would have to understand what motivates a person to do that. The judge replied that she is to decided only "if." But, but, but....dismissed. Jury decisions are the law. The latest jury null, we all know about, is Casey Anthony. They nulled the prosecutor.

Civil disobedience and jury nullls are part of our rights, in the US. England, I found out, still has no Constitution, as such. they are piling up knee jerk laws about the Internet, for example. As if child porn is the worst problem there is. In the US, we aren't going allow a law to review all computers without warrant, just to pick up the child porn.

And, afaik, there are no other Constitutions in this world where the citizens grant rights to the state, not the other way.

Jury decisions are the law.

 

[MellowFarmer]

Just recently responded to jury summons. It's the first time I've had to sit through voir dire. I can tell that jury nulification is something they can only control with the selection challenges. They won't come out and say it. But, there were a lot of questions about civil disobedience, Occupy thisnthat.
Gandhi and MLK were discussed at length in such tricky ways. Some were dismissed for no other reason I could tell except from sympathy with protesting.

It was a Nordstroms shop lifting case. A Buddhist woman was dismissed because she would have to understand what motivates a person to do that.
The judge replied that she is to decided only "if." But, but, but....dismissed. Jury decisions are the law. The latest jury null, we all know about, is Casey Anthony. They nulled the prosecutor.

Civil disobedience and jury nullls are part of our rights, in the US. England, I found out, still has no Constitution, as such. they are piling up knee jerks laws about the Internet for example.

And, afaik, there are no other constitutions where the citizens grant rights to the state, not the other way.

Jury decisions are the law.

Isn't Jury nullification when the Jury refuses to convict because they believe the law is unjust? How does that apply to a baby murderer?

 

[Doer]

I believe if you as an individual are subject to harassment by the police, if you are unable to effect your world, either through financial disadvantage of racial discrimination, if you can be held/detained without any judicial over-sight for years without being told of the charges against you ... well I think you/we live in a Fascist dictatorship.
Just because our nations don't adopt these ideas it doesnt stop people. Actually many people live by these philosophies on a daily basis. Hinduism, Fascism, anarchism, Marxism, ..

Its pretty much like that in China at the moment, only the other day I watched a BBC report on forced abortions carried out on women. You can't say shit in China.

Well, that's right. A moral stance, like anarchy or these others, don't fair well as govt. I would not have included Hindu, you really mean Socialism, I think. India is a very broken place. Any culture that believes in re-incarnation, tend to treat the down-trodden as failures in past life. There is no sympathy as we know it.

 

[Jer La Mota]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/14/case-of-woman-acquitted-of-hiring-hit-man-to-kill-abusive-spouse-goes-to-top-court

 

[Doer]

Isn't Jury nullification when the Jury refuses to convict because they believe the law is unjust? How does that apply to a baby murderer?

As I said, they nullified the prosecution. They didn't believe the law as unjust. They believed the prosecution was too aggressive, the case was way overcharged for the evidence and there was no need for the prosecutor to act like such an ass. The jury would rather send a message than convict. That's nullification.

 

[mindphuk]

Isn't Jury nullification when the Jury refuses to convict because they believe the law is unjust? How does that apply to a baby murderer?

Jury nullification is when things besides the facts of the case are considered. Juries are allowed to judge not just the facts but the law as well. So yes, if I am on a jury and someone is being charged with simple possession I can vote to acquit even if the facts of the case demonstrate his guilt. AFAIK, the Anthony case was acquitted because the prosecution did not prove their case. The facts of the case were assessed and found lacking. IMO, there was no nullification there as even some jurors felt she was guilty but could not convict on the evidence they were allowed to use.

 

[Moebius]

[video=youtube;hrZLc9lqQM0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrZLc9lqQM0[/video]

 

[chrishydro]

Attack my child, GF and after you bond out I will kill you. This I know is murder, this is a violation of the law, I know it you know it everyone knows it. Jury will most likely set you free. The reason the law is there is because if I am wrong and the Police are wrong then I murdered you for no reason. I see both sides, I do, I hear your question but think that there are things done everyday that are right but against the law. Just saying

 

[Moebius]

[h=1]Officer Steals Marijuana from Suspects[/h]
Edward Sanchez, once the captain of his Dearborn Heights police department, has not been charged with the crime of stealing and consuming marijuana from criminal suspects. The department investigation began when a 911 call was placed from Edward Sanchez's home in Dearborn Heights on the night of April 21, 2006. A frightened Sanchez reported to an emergency dispatcher that his wife and he consumed marijuana brownies and thought they were overdosing. The catch was that the marijuana once belonged to criminals that Sanchez himself would arrest.
In the 5 minutes long recorded 911 conversation, Edward Sanchez sounded panicked. "I think we're dying," said Sanchez. "We made brownies and I think we're dead, I really do."
Edward Sanchez continued to explain to the emergency dispatcher that he had never made marijuana brownies before, but previously used marijuana.
EMS took both Sanchez and his wife to the hospital where they were released the next morning.
Later on, while being questioned by police investigators, Edward Sanchez blamed his wife, saying that she took the marijuana out of his police vehicle while he was asleep. His wife backed up his claim by saying that he tricked her into eating the marijuana laced brownie. Yet, after being questioned and interviewed repeatedly, Edward Sanchez admitted that he took the marijuana out of his vehicle, put it in the brownie batter, and willingly consumed the brownies. He also stated that he took the marijuana "off the street from unknown persons.
Hid wife also confessed that on another occasion, she removed cocaine, which is used to train police dogs, from her husband's vehicle, and went on a weekend binge. She was not charged for the crime either.
The decision to not charge Edward Sanchez and his wife has upset a great number of people, which includes Dearborn Councilman Dough Thomas, who says the department's decision sends the wrong message to the public. Thomas promises that he will investigate and compares the situation to a cop who catches a bank robber and keeps some of the money for him/herself.
"It doesn't add up here," Doug Thomas said. "If he was allowed to resign with no action, he can apply for another police position. There's all kinds of ramifications.
Edward Sanchez chose to resign before the investigation was completed. Once the investigation was completed, the police department has decided to not press charges against Sanchez or his wife. When questioned by reporters, Sanchez declined to comment.

 

[Moebius]

Attack my child, GF and after you bond out I will kill you. This I know is murder, this is a violation of the law, I know it you know it everyone knows it. Jury will most likely set you free. The reason the law is there is because if I am wrong and the Police are wrong then I murdered you for no reason. I see both sides, I do, I hear your question but think that there are things done everyday that are right but against the law. Just saying

What you describe as 'right' others may disagree. Not everyone who has a family member attacked or killed seeks vengeance. This is a decision we make and justify for ourselves. Just like many professional criminals justify their actions everyday. It seems purely subjective.

It seems there are few, if any of us who choose to obey the law just because, its the law.

 

[high|hgih]

Eye for an eye.

That is fair, however I take it too far most of the time.. Its more like eye for a lower torso

 

[Shannon Alexander]

I've had Jury Duty twice... and the one thing that scares me about the possibility of going to court one day is how stupid, ignorant, selfish and uncaring the general population is when they are doing what I consider a civic duty... The whole 11 other people every time just wanted to convict and go home... I was the only person that took it seriously... I never want to be tried by my so called peers...

 

[Doer]

Jury nullification is when things besides the facts of the case are considered. Juries are allowed to judge not just the facts but the law as well. So yes, if I am on a jury and someone is being charged with simple possession I can vote to acquit even if the facts of the case demonstrate his guilt. AFAIK, the Anthony case was acquitted because the prosecution did not prove their case. The facts of the case were assessed and found lacking. IMO, there was no nullification there as even some jurors felt she was guilty but could not convict on the evidence they were allowed to use.

OK, that's probably more the case, with Anthony. She could have been convicted of any/all of a number of charges, just not first degree murder. She had a good lawyer.

Here's some law school o the topic. The power vs the right to nullify.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

"Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about
misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive
prosecutions. "