|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature,
>> they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free
>> and the jury isn't in any trouble.
>
> Isn't that a case of mistrial? Is the procedure in case of mistrial
> really letting the accused go free, rather than setting up a new trial?
You mean if the jury doesn't follow the laws? Well, there's two.
If you mean "the jury talks to someone they shouldn't" or "the jury is
bribed to vote one way or the other", yes, that's a mistrial.
What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that
are valid laws, because the jury disagrees. Like, in the days when the USA
still had slavery, the law was that a slave who escaped and went to an area
where there wasn't slavery still had to be sent back if he got caught. Many
juries refused to enforce this law, since they saw slavery as immoral even
if legal.
I could also see if (say) abortion were made unconditionally illegal and the
punishment was 20 years in jail for the mother, I could easily see juries
simply saying "Nope, the mother is innocent" even if every piece of evidence
including videotapes and confessions by the doctors was presented, yes?
For that, you can't punish the jury. I meant by "the jury not following the
laws", I meant the laws that say "you should convict someone if the evidence
is overwhelming."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no
CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |