"Scout" <scout_x@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2Kfib.37820$mQ2.28426@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net: 

> 
> "Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message

...

> it's
>> >> >acquittal....I will simply note that no matter what you call it
>> >> >the 
>> >result
>> >> >is the same. The defendant walks.
>> >> >
>> >> >Glad to see you agree that the jury can and does acquit no matter
>> >> >what 
>> >the
>> >> >law says, or how firmly you feel you have proven their guilty.
>> >>
>> >> Why would you think I would disagree with that?
>> >
>> >Something to do with "jury nullification" a term you don't like,
>> >however 
> if
>> >we substitute "jury acquittal" even if it is identical in all
>> >respects, 
> then
>> >you seem perfectly happy. Oh, well, if calling a rose a flower makes
>> >you happy.........
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, I suppose you could say that not getting caught is "identical
>> in all respects" from not doing it.
> 
> Since the jury doesn't have to discuss their deliberations, nor does
> any particular member have to announce why they are voting a
> particular manner, I don't see how they can be "caught", and if
> "caught" doing anything less than what they are suppose to. 

Suppose you are a juror in a criminal case where the defendent
is being charged with the crime of "possession of a gun without
the proper paperwork". You, believing that the law itself is 
unconstitutional, decide to vote not guilty, even though the defendant
*is* guilty of the made-up "crime". Despite the fact that you are right, 
you cannot tell the rest of the jury *why* you are voting not guilty.
If you do, they will tell the judge that you are disobeying his
instructions (by not applying the law) and you will be thrown off 
the jury and another innocent man goes to prison. So that is how
you can get "caught" doing the right thing. And you cannot just sit 
there and say nothing day after day, because they will then tell
the judge that you are refusing to deliberate. Make no mistake about
it, you WILL be the only one who questions the law itself in that room. 
You will likely be the only person in the entire building that would go 
against the judge's instructions and not apply the law. 

What everyone in this thread doesn't realize is that 99.9 percent of the 
population is amazingly, sickeningly, subservient to authority. When that 
judge speaks, they do as they are told, even if what the judge is telling
them to do is wrong.



>Call it
> what you will, the jury determines the man shouldn't be prosecuted, he
> walks.....no matter HOW guilty of the crime he may be. You call it
> acquittal, I call it nullification. They are the different labels for
> the same thing. In short a matter of semantics....not fact.