Did you know? As a jury member, you may vote "not guilty" to protect the accused?
This during "Trial by Jury." This is known as "Jury Nullification."
Why would one do that? Several reasons:
#1: Laws are general, and under a specific circumstance, the law may not apply to the situation. The accused should go free (acquitted);
#2: The penalty far exceeds the crime. Comedian Steve Martin once made a joke: "Overpopulation a problem? That's easy, the death penalty for a parking violation." As a jury member, would you vote "guilty", knowing the death penalty would be imposed for a parking violation? With jury nullification, you can, and should vote "not-guilty." Many other situations may present themselves to a jury, where the penalty far exceeds the crime. If a juror believes that the penalty is too severe, they should vote for the accused as "not guilty." With multiple acquittals, this will send a message to the legislature to "back-down."
#3: The law itself violates the natural rights (& Constitutional rights) of the accused. Ever wonder why so many laws and codes get started? Then from these initial laws, more codes are added, and added. (ie. . . the building codes, making new homes very expensive; now new homes in Oregon and California require fire sprinklers.) As jury members, had the American people knew their power, these codes would not be enforceable. No court conviction, no effective code.
#4: The juror's conscience. A jury member may think, 'something just isn't right in this situation the way the government is handling the purported crime of the accused.'
Where did jury nullification come from? Historians have indicated that both the Egyptians and the Hebrews had this in their court systems. (a time era of 400 -- 900+ B.C.) At times a jury member had more power than the Pharaoh! Why? Pharaoh made a law, and a jury member(s) nullified it.
In America, where did jury nullification come from? Answer: England. In 1670, a man was on trial for speaking out against the King of England -- Charles II. The matter went to trial, and one jury member Edward Bushell refused to vote "Guilty." Why? King Charles II had a habit of murdering outspoken political opponents.
Then King Charles II decided to jail Mr. Bushell and other jury members for their 1st verdict of "Not Guilty." After a few days without food and water, the public was outraged. Concerned with a revolt, King Charles II then decided to live with whatever verdict the jury rendered. Releasing them from jail, Bushell & all other jurors rendered a verdict of "NOT GUILTY." The accused then was acquitted, and set free.
What was the problem? The accused was speaking to a group of religious people, as he was a pastor. He accused the king of wrongdoing, and freely expressing his thoughts.
From Bushell's verdict, we had in colonial America adjudicated through the "Common-Law" courts:
1. Freedom of Assembly;
2. Freedom of Speech;
3. Freedom of Religion.
These were left out in of the Constitution, perhaps because they were adjudicated rights needing not written down, and already well known in the public mind of the Colonials. (Once the Constitution was proposed, the Bill of Rights was added with these rights written down.)
Oh. . .. By the way, the accused was William Penn. . . the founder of the great colony, would become. . . the great state of Pennsylvania.
See now the necessity for jury nullification? The home page also discusses what happens in a country that has not jury nullification -- GENOCIDE.
In addition, using jury nullification, laws and regulations can be made "unenforceable", hence they are taken off of the books. The French did this well to repeal much of the harsh Napoleonic code. Author James Donavan documents this in his book Juries and the Transformation of Criminal Justice in France, in the 19th & 20th Centuries.
Political Influence: When people nullify endless government laws and codes- through jury nullification, these codes must be removed from the books. Why? It becomes economically burdensome for a court to go through another case for the jury to yield a verdict of "not-guilty." Judges and the court system hate wasting time. ANY LAW THAT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IS NO EFFECTIVE LAW!!!!!
When jury members don't use jury nullification, then government grows and grows. Hmmmm. . ...
Jury nullification is also hidden from the minds of most Americans. I believe on-purpose; this so government can grow.
It should be noted that true justice requires, "Acquitting the innocent, condemning the guilty."1
It should be noted, that when GRAND JURIES choosing not to indict in the first place, ends the matter! "Nipped in the bud." OVER, FINISHED, TERMINATED, DONE! (At least that is the way it is done in some states like Texas for a felony.) The grand jury's refusal to indict is known as a "No True Bill." Imaging how much less we would need attorneys if this occurred more often.
JURY NULLIFICATION FLYER: The below jury nullification flyer explains jury nullification well. I have helped hand-out similar "weaker" flyers during jury selection. The result was many acquittals on the case; the accused walked. In addition, I have heard of many different cases being acquitted because "trial by jury" members received fliers like these informing them of their jury nullification power. The below I wrote as a "power-packed", 1-page summary.
http://hidden4thbranch.com/?page_id=231
1. Deut. 25:1: The Author of the Hebrew Torah stated regarding matters of justice, "Acquitting the innocent, condemning the guilty." Notice the Author of the Hebrew Torah started that phrase with, "Acquitting the innocent"? Is this equally important in matters of justice?
This during "Trial by Jury." This is known as "Jury Nullification."
Why would one do that? Several reasons:
#1: Laws are general, and under a specific circumstance, the law may not apply to the situation. The accused should go free (acquitted);
#2: The penalty far exceeds the crime. Comedian Steve Martin once made a joke: "Overpopulation a problem? That's easy, the death penalty for a parking violation." As a jury member, would you vote "guilty", knowing the death penalty would be imposed for a parking violation? With jury nullification, you can, and should vote "not-guilty." Many other situations may present themselves to a jury, where the penalty far exceeds the crime. If a juror believes that the penalty is too severe, they should vote for the accused as "not guilty." With multiple acquittals, this will send a message to the legislature to "back-down."
#3: The law itself violates the natural rights (& Constitutional rights) of the accused. Ever wonder why so many laws and codes get started? Then from these initial laws, more codes are added, and added. (ie. . . the building codes, making new homes very expensive; now new homes in Oregon and California require fire sprinklers.) As jury members, had the American people knew their power, these codes would not be enforceable. No court conviction, no effective code.
#4: The juror's conscience. A jury member may think, 'something just isn't right in this situation the way the government is handling the purported crime of the accused.'
Where did jury nullification come from? Historians have indicated that both the Egyptians and the Hebrews had this in their court systems. (a time era of 400 -- 900+ B.C.) At times a jury member had more power than the Pharaoh! Why? Pharaoh made a law, and a jury member(s) nullified it.
In America, where did jury nullification come from? Answer: England. In 1670, a man was on trial for speaking out against the King of England -- Charles II. The matter went to trial, and one jury member Edward Bushell refused to vote "Guilty." Why? King Charles II had a habit of murdering outspoken political opponents.
Then King Charles II decided to jail Mr. Bushell and other jury members for their 1st verdict of "Not Guilty." After a few days without food and water, the public was outraged. Concerned with a revolt, King Charles II then decided to live with whatever verdict the jury rendered. Releasing them from jail, Bushell & all other jurors rendered a verdict of "NOT GUILTY." The accused then was acquitted, and set free.
What was the problem? The accused was speaking to a group of religious people, as he was a pastor. He accused the king of wrongdoing, and freely expressing his thoughts.
From Bushell's verdict, we had in colonial America adjudicated through the "Common-Law" courts:
1. Freedom of Assembly;
2. Freedom of Speech;
3. Freedom of Religion.
These were left out in of the Constitution, perhaps because they were adjudicated rights needing not written down, and already well known in the public mind of the Colonials. (Once the Constitution was proposed, the Bill of Rights was added with these rights written down.)
Oh. . .. By the way, the accused was William Penn. . . the founder of the great colony, would become. . . the great state of Pennsylvania.
See now the necessity for jury nullification? The home page also discusses what happens in a country that has not jury nullification -- GENOCIDE.
In addition, using jury nullification, laws and regulations can be made "unenforceable", hence they are taken off of the books. The French did this well to repeal much of the harsh Napoleonic code. Author James Donavan documents this in his book Juries and the Transformation of Criminal Justice in France, in the 19th & 20th Centuries.
Political Influence: When people nullify endless government laws and codes- through jury nullification, these codes must be removed from the books. Why? It becomes economically burdensome for a court to go through another case for the jury to yield a verdict of "not-guilty." Judges and the court system hate wasting time. ANY LAW THAT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IS NO EFFECTIVE LAW!!!!!
When jury members don't use jury nullification, then government grows and grows. Hmmmm. . ...
Jury nullification is also hidden from the minds of most Americans. I believe on-purpose; this so government can grow.
It should be noted that true justice requires, "Acquitting the innocent, condemning the guilty."1
It should be noted, that when GRAND JURIES choosing not to indict in the first place, ends the matter! "Nipped in the bud." OVER, FINISHED, TERMINATED, DONE! (At least that is the way it is done in some states like Texas for a felony.) The grand jury's refusal to indict is known as a "No True Bill." Imaging how much less we would need attorneys if this occurred more often.
JURY NULLIFICATION FLYER: The below jury nullification flyer explains jury nullification well. I have helped hand-out similar "weaker" flyers during jury selection. The result was many acquittals on the case; the accused walked. In addition, I have heard of many different cases being acquitted because "trial by jury" members received fliers like these informing them of their jury nullification power. The below I wrote as a "power-packed", 1-page summary.
http://hidden4thbranch.com/?page_id=231
1. Deut. 25:1: The Author of the Hebrew Torah stated regarding matters of justice, "Acquitting the innocent, condemning the guilty." Notice the Author of the Hebrew Torah started that phrase with, "Acquitting the innocent"? Is this equally important in matters of justice?
