Science > Abortion > Re: Jury Nullification: A Weapon to Save Unborn Children
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Spartakus" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2003 09:35:25 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Jury Nullification: A Weapon to Save Unborn Children |
"Northern California Native"
<GOnorcalnativeSPAM@YOURSELFsbcglobal.net> wrote...
All pro-life people must endeavor to heed the call to serve on juries.
Especially critical, of course, is service on juries where other pro-
life activists are on trial for a variety of charges relating to
saving unborn children, from "blocking access" to an Abortion Mill,
to justifiably killing an Aborticidal Lunatic fraudulently called
a "doctor."
When an individual has graduated from an accredited medical school,
served a 4-year residency, passed a state board exam and acquired a
license to practice medicine, he or she is a "doctor", and there is
nothing fraudulent about it. HTH. HAMD.
When a pro-life activist is seated on a jury, the ancient right of
"jury nullification" must be practiced. If a fellow (although
probably unknown to oneself) activist is being tried for one or
more "crimes" defined by the Abortion-endorsing government, the
jury member must remember that he or she may judge both the facts
of the case AND the merits (or lack thereof) of the law allegedly
violated itself. The judge will tell you that you may not do this.
That is irrelevant, as the authority of a jury to "nullify" unjust
law predates the United States of America, and, remains guaranteed
by the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution. You must remember
to keep your conscience and reasoning to yourself as best as
you can.
Technically, you are correct. There is a long-standing tradition of
jury nullification in the U.S. In order to be valid, however, an act
of jury nullification must pass certain tests. IANAL, but I am
certain that your proposal does not pass these tests. There are other
problems as well, and I will address those presently.
Pro-life activists know that abortion is a heinous evil, regardless
of what politicians, other lawyers, and the Abortion Movement
lunatics say. Pro-life activists seated on a jury may and must
follow their conscience regarding the facts presented AND the
righteousness and relevance of the legal statute itself.
Many people who think of themselves as sincere pro-lifers are opposed
to violence in any form against abortion providers. Therefore, they
would be following their consciences by voting to convict someone like
Paul Hill.
Another problem: jury selection - if the prosecuting attorney thinks
that a jury candidate is likely to put his/her anti-abortion agenda
ahead of the law and the facts, that attorney will excuse the
candidate. And that will be that.
So, in order for your plan to work, prospective anti-choice jurors
would have to lie about their beliefs in order to be seated on the
jury, thus VIOLATING, not following, their consciences.
Which sort of invalidates the point of the exercise.
Paul Hill would be alive today if one pro-life activist practicing
jury nullification sat on his jury.
There are at least 12 anti-choice posters in talk.abortion who have
stated that Paul Hill's murders of Dr. Britton and Mr. Barrett were
not justified. If any 12 of these posters had served on the jury at
Hill's trial, Hill would still have been convicted and sentenced to
death.
.
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Jury Nullification: A Weapon to Save Unborn Children |
11 Sep 2003 06:49:45 PM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0309110635.2b0195b6@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
There are at least 12 anti-choice posters in talk.abortion who have
stated that Paul Hill's murders of Dr. Britton and Mr. Barrett were
not justified. If any 12 of these posters had served on the jury at
Hill's trial, Hill would still have been convicted and sentenced to
death.
File this comment under, "Pat 'Em On The Back And Kick 'Em In The
*****." If folder is full, file under, "Useful Bourgeoise Idiots."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jury Nullification: A Weapon to Save Unborn Children |
11 Sep 2003 09:58:11 AM |
|
|
On 11 Sep 2003 07:35:25 -0700, (Spartakus) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<6ed74dfa.0309110635.2b0195b6@posting.google.com> wrote:
"Northern California Native"
<GOnorcalnativeSPAM@YOURSELFsbcglobal.net> wrote...
When a pro-life activist is seated on a jury, the ancient right of
"jury nullification" must be practiced. If a fellow (although
probably unknown to oneself) activist is being tried for one or
more "crimes" defined by the Abortion-endorsing government, the
jury member must remember that he or she may judge both the facts
of the case AND the merits (or lack thereof) of the law allegedly
violated itself. The judge will tell you that you may not do this.
That is irrelevant, as the authority of a jury to "nullify" unjust
law predates the United States of America, and, remains guaranteed
by the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution. You must remember
to keep your conscience and reasoning to yourself as best as
you can.
Technically, you are correct. There is a long-standing tradition of
jury nullification in the U.S. In order to be valid, however, an act
of jury nullification must pass certain tests. IANAL, but I am
certain that your proposal does not pass these tests. There are other
problems as well, and I will address those presently.
The judge can always set aside the jury verdict if they act blatantly
against the law or the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Pillsbury" |
|
| Title: Re: Jury Nullification: A Weapon to Save Unborn Children |
11 Sep 2003 01:56:03 PM |
|
|
prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com. writes:
On 11 Sep 2003 07:35:25 -0700, (Spartakus) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<6ed74dfa.0309110635.2b0195b6@posting.google.com> wrote:
[...]
Technically, you are correct. There is a long-standing tradition
of jury nullification in the U.S. In order to be valid, however,
an act of jury nullification must pass certain tests. IANAL, but I
am certain that your proposal does not pass these tests. There are
other problems as well, and I will address those presently.
The judge can always set aside the jury verdict if they act
blatantly against the law or the evidence.
I'm pretty sure that judges can only set aside *guilty* verdicts in
criminal trials.
--
Matt Pillsbury "The brain is an important learning
pillsy@mac.com tool, Meatwad."--ATHF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
