Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: kmfkewm on October 25, 2012, 01:52 am
-
If anyone here is ever selected to serve on a jury for a drug crime, I hope you know that it is your duty to nullify and vote not guilty regardless of the evidence. Once I heard a drug user who talked about how he was on a jury that convicted a person for drug charges. I immediately equated him to a snitch. If you convict someone of a drug charge, you are equal to a snitch. It is your duty as a drug user to not only nullify, but to try and be selected on the jury. Lie. Say what you think it takes to be selected. Listen to the case, and then nullify. Don't be pressured by others. Did the person kill a police officer who was serving a drug warrant? Nullify still. If you do not nullify in this situation, you show that you believe the police and drug war are legitimate. Tell your friends and family to nullify as well.
-
You're a radicalized motherfucker in almost every sense of the word. I ignore jury duty letters regardless. If I was on a jury and some crackhead killed a cop and had a history of hard drug use I'd consider him guilty. I don't agree with US wars overseas but I don't dislike American soldiers if that makes sense. I think you have a Tyler Durden fetish or something. Project mayhem; just with free child porn and letter bombs for everyone.
-
The crackhead is guilty of killing a would be kidnapper / armed robber. Good for him, he asserted his right to be free.
-
How does it feel being a terrorist? Because I'm pretty extremist, but you've crossed the line into perversion and terrorism.
-
Acting in such a deceitful and destructive manner does nothing to serve drug users who want to be a peaceful part of society and not branded "Cocaine Crazed Negros" (a brand published by the New York Times in 1914 which set all of drug criminilization and control into existence .... see Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914).
I prefer to abstain completely from jury duty because of my strong opposition to drug laws rather then to act like a dirty manipulatively rat who tell's lies and manipulates situations for very small, if any gain's and definitely destruction in it's wake.
-
How does it feel being a terrorist?
Jury nullification is legal. It isn't illegal to nullify for someone who has killed someone.
-
Nullification is not illegal, but it may lead to some problems.
In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas,[29] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). The Second Circuit also stated, however, that the court must not remove a juror for an alleged refusal to follow the law as instructed unless the record leaves no doubt that the juror was in fact engaged in deliberate misconduct—that he was not simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants.
In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law.[30]
That being said, I agree that as (potential) jurors, we should fight to return a verdict of "not guilty" for those charged with drug-related offenses.
-
Agreed. The principal applies more broadly as well.
Protip: Save your tax dollars! If everybody did this the prisons would have a tiny fraction of the prisoners they do have. 1% of the US population is inside a metal cage. This is the moral thing to do, it is not directly out of self interest. Although there are those tax dollars...
@JoeyGPesci007
kmfkewm said -> drug crime <-. He didn't say if some guy murdered an entire family and then smoked a spliff over their bodies you should absolve him of all responsibility. If violence is involved it's a more considered call, but if it's a straight forward case of somebody in the dock for a drug crime then you'd have to a complete hypocrite not to support them.
Consistency!
-
Also going back to our discussions re: Rothbard & Konkin, it is ideal to simultaneously vote politicians into power who support drug liberalization e.g. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, while at the same time undermining the state by not paying taxes and subverting their agencies via tactics like whistle blowing (SR should have SRleaks or something, there is so much collective knowledge we could all productively exploit).
This may sound contradictory to some extent, Rothbard and Konkin were of different minds on the matter, but it makes sense. After all we don't know the future, but we know either one of those activities support our objectives. No need to get ideological and put all the eggs in one basket.
-
The ILF wish more people knew about the concept of nullification, especially considering that if a US victim of the drug war is lucky enough to have one trial with a juror who nullifies, it might not even matter. Our understanding is that the Feds are keen on going back to trial until they get a conviction or a plea, in the rare cases in which they can't force a plea right from the start. Two in a row or three's the charm nullification could be necessary to save some people's skins.
The other issue is that a lot of the populace don't know how draconian the sentences are and are told to only decide guilt or innocence, not realizing they just effectively sent someone away for decades for a crime they thought would receive a slap on the wrist.
Education is truly the key :)
-
I think I would be likely to do this in the case of a non-violent drug offense, though I don't believe in any kind of blanket way of thinking or acting, it's always gotta be case by case. If violence is involved though, chances are I'd want the defendant (if guilty) to pay to the full extent of the law. There's nothing to be gained by conflating sociopathic violent assholes with the rest of us responsible drug users.
I agree with joey, you can't OK murder just because drugs were involved, if you have any serious interest in contributing to a longterm program to effect deep change in the system. That's just crazy, sorry OP
-
You say that I cannot okay murder just because drugs are involved, I say you cannot okay kidnapping , armed robbery, home invasion and assault just because the state is involved.
-
unless you raped someone, touched a little kid, killed someone over a bike or phone then your free to go in my books and i will make sure you miss trial! shiiit i cant wait to be on a jury just to do this!