Do we hold a right to break the law?

[rudeguy]

Oh shi.... its flea bag!

 

[mammador]

lolol..

OK, prove I have no gf. Can you prove YOU all have gf or spouses? If you post some picture of a woman or man up, lolol.. how am I supposed to believe that?

Secondly, I understand human nature, and that we seek to do as we please all the time.

 

[mammador]

Pics of girlfriend?

To answer the question, you have a moral obligation to not uphold an unjust law.

Meaning, if you ever serve on a jury, your guilty or not-guilty vote should be a reflection if the law is a just or unjust law.

As a citizen you should follow the law.

As a juror, you should follow your conscience.

Pics? See my prior post.

Unjust I believe is subjective.

Also, jury trials suck. Conscience? lolol.. Jury trials merely reflect prejudice and bias. Look at the Zimmerman case. All criminal trials IMO should be tried by a judge SOLELY. If s/he fucks up, then s/he is held to account and if possible jailed on the outcome. At least s/he knows the law.

 

[mammador]

Not social animals you say? Why the vocal chords and language, then? The very act of reproduction is techinically a social interaction, even in the case of caveman rape.

Er. tigers have vocal chords. Are they social? Tigers also have sex when mating, big deal. are you saying they live in prides, and they're considered solitary since it's what mammologists WANT people to think?

 

[dud]

My gf and I were debating this the other day.

Isn't order simply something "sold to us" by the authorities?

Why is anarchy really "worse" than order? Who determines this? The PC media? Ancient governments?

I doubt we are actually social animals. I think it's just the beliefs of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists to assert that.

Mammador has a girlfriend? I thought the OP was female.

This explains a lot ...

 

[Sulaco]

Mammador has a girlfriend? I thought the OP was female.

This explains a lot ...

No. He's a little boy who pretends to have a girlfriend, can't communicate or function in the slightest social situation, and trolls masterfully for about a week or two between being banned.

 

[BudAshes]

Er. tigers have vocal chords. Are they social? Tigers also have sex when mating, big deal. are you saying they live in prides, and they're considered solitary since it's what mammologists WANT people to think?

But could a tiger kill a lion in a fight on the empire state building?

 

[Craig234]

Benjamin Franklins uncle, who was a printer, printed an article that was critical of the king. The uncle was arrested and put on trial.

The defense argued that we have a GOD given right to freedom of speech.

The jury found the uncle not guilty. The judge threw out the verdict and then arrested the jury.

If a jury follows the instructions of the court, the juror is nothing more than a pawn to the government. We have a moral obligation not to uphold unjust laws. It is called jury nullification, and it is my right.

What do you think by the people, for the people means? The government is powerless to enforce its own laws without the consent of the people. That consent comes from the jury.

As for the second trial, that is why we have laws prohibiting double jeopardy.

On nullification, yes and no.

You can make highly sympathetic cases on both sides.

On the 'pro' side, you have a jury who refuses to convict Rosa Parks for the crime of sitting in the front of the bus, or in Germany refuse to convict a Jew of some trumped of crime.

On the 'no' side, you have a southern jury of whites who refuse to convict a white man of killing a black, no matter how obviously guilty he is.

So depending how you feel about the case, you can view nullification as some important moral right or some immoral travesty of justice.

There's the large issue that the jury is not supposed to decide for itself whether it likes the law; and on the other hand the case where they are a 'last resort' from a terrible law.

It's not easy to come up with some simple answer on the issue that addresses all those cases.

It's more a power than a right, and can hurt or help justice. Technically, it's not allowed. It's just not easy at all to prevent.

 

[mammador]

No. He's a little boy who pretends to have a girlfriend, can't communicate or function in the slightest social situation, and trolls masterfully for about a week or two between being banned.

Communicate? haha.. this is a message board. I'm actually quite different in real life, and many deem to me to be polite and a gentleman. as for gf, well yes, I do, prove I don't haha..:awe: I generally vocalise things here I don't say to people in public. So yeah, I have shitty social awareness, because I think it's bad to offend people. ()🙂

 

[mammador]

But could a tiger kill a lion in a fight on the empire state building?

yes. Tigers are the king of the cats. Fuck lions. :biggrin:

In seriousness, an Amur tiger 9 times of out 10 could defeat the largest African lion subspecies.

 

[mammador]

Humans can try to do whatever they like, whether or not they succeed is an entirely different matter.

Humans, and a lot of other primates are definitely social creatures. Why do you think solitary confinement is so horrible?

Depends on a person's personality, does it not?

 

[mammador]

mammador you're so monographic

Or others have to make opinions based on your own tastes? Or care of how you perceive them?

 

[Texashiker]

Also, jury trials suck. Conscience? lolol.. Jury trials merely reflect prejudice and bias. Look at the Zimmerman case. All criminal trials IMO should be tried by a judge SOLELY. If s/he fucks up, then s/he is held to account and if possible jailed on the outcome. At least s/he knows the law.

What are you, like 16 years old?

 

[mammador]

No, early 30s.

It's an honest opinion, since not all lawyers, legal theorists or philosophers themselves see the inherent good in jury trials. Can anybody prove that it is? 😉

 

[Texashiker]

No, early 30s.

It's an honest opinion, since not all lawyers, legal theorists or philosophers themselves see the inherent good in jury trials. Can anybody prove that it is? 😉

When the government is allowed to enforce its own laws, we are no longer citizens, we are subjects.

When we feel we a moral obligation to follow an unjust law, we are not longer freemen. Freemen have free choice. Part of that freedom is a decision to uphold an unjust law.

 

[mammador]

Doesn't and shouldn't make a difference. I'd rather a trained lawyer turned judge determine my innocence or guilt than some rag-tag layabouts based on their whims, fancies and all other normal human traits. If I'm innocent of a crime, a juror may convict me because I'm black and s/he hates blacks, or I'm a man and s/he hates men or I remind her of a man who once wronged her, or if it's said I support a football team that a juror hates or is rival to, etc.

Many countries have non-jury trials, so it's an either/or.

 

[Craig234]

When the government is allowed to enforce its own laws, we are no longer citizens, we are subjects.

When we feel we a moral obligation to follow an unjust law, we are not longer freemen. Freemen have free choice. Part of that freedom is a decision to uphold an unjust law.

So, you're going to ignore post 33?

 

[Texashiker]

So, you're going to ignore post 33?

Not ignoring anything.

I feel you are correct in your assessment.

 

[dank69]

Er. tigers have vocal chords. Are they social? Tigers also have sex when mating, big deal. are you saying they live in prides, and they're considered solitary since it's what mammologists WANT people to think?

Tell us all about the anti-social tiger's language. How about you research the mating process of tigers and tell us why you don't think it is a social interaction.

How well do you think you would have fared if your mommy shit you out in the middle of nowhere and left you to fend for yourself?

 

[RedRooster]

Your right to disobey laws is offset by everyone else's right to kill you if you encroach on their liberties. Go ahead, roll the dice.

 

[exdeath]

Bullshit.

If a jury comes back with a verdict that is contrary to the law, the verdict is thrown out and a mistrial declared. Then the taxpayers have to cough up a bunch of money for a second trial.

A juror's sole responsibilities are to decide what the facts of the case are and to apply the law (regardless of the juror's opinion of the law) to the facts. Anything else gives you a mistrial and a bunch of wasted taxpayer money.

Frankly, jurors who try this whole "jury nullification" bullshit should be charged for the costs of the new trial instead of all the rest of us being forced to pay for the juror's quixotic and useless grandstanding.

If you want to change a law, work for it. Spend the time lobbying, craft good arguments, and get public support. Don't try to get away with being a lazy slacker on a jury. Even if jury nullification worked, it wouldn't change the law; you'd only be helping one person instead of changing the law for everyone.

ZV

So why does this conflict with the role of the court as a check and balance against unpopular or undesired legislation vs the judicial branch just rubber stamping the legislative branch? Jury nullification should be a viable check and balance.

Regardless how the court system is perverted in reality today as a mere rubber stamp for legislators, it is in fact SUPPOSED to be a check and balance against the legislative branch and last line of defense for citizens and their peers against fundamentally wrong legislation. A jury of your peers, the people in their purest form having a direct representation and immediate and final say without being proxied by representatives they may or may not have voted for.

When voting and lobbying doesn't work simply because 51% of the public believes in taking your rights away, what other recourse is there outside court? A shootout with police when you ignore it and get caught? Civil war?

Very serious question, what other recourse is there when 51% of the public wants to take something from you, lobbying and petitioning fails because only 49% side with a fundamental ideology and courts simply rubber stamp, and any judges who could throw it out are all part of that 51% appeal after appeal? I don't know about you but that's a very scary situation to me.

Lets use a hypothetical total federal gun ban and confiscation as an example of something relevant in today's political climate and what would be a total clusterfuck of bloodshed in the US. . Or even prohibition, my favorite example of actual recent history of mass civil disobedience being the only effective last resort on a national scale. Prohibition required uncontrollable civil disobedience and violence to be repealed.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

you are free do to whatever you want, just expect the consequences of whatever society you are a part of.

do you have a right to cheat on your girlfriend? isnt fidelity just something sold to you by 'authorities'? why dont you try that out and see what happens in your personal society.

 

[alkemyst]

If we had anarchy, my money is the OP and his 'girlfriend' would be assed out in some alleyway half dead.

 

[exdeath]

Law and government were created to protect liberty. When law contradicts this purpose, not only do we have a natural right to disobey, it is our duty to do so.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I bet many people break federal laws all the time. Look up the flag law. It is federal law, but it is unenforceable due to the freedom of speech.