Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Desdinova:Add an explanation of juror's rights and we may be making some tentative steps towards shifting control of the legal system away from the larger interests and back towards those who are REALLY supposed to control it: the people. I agree. That would be a good way to nullify laws bought and paid for by corporations.
Like the militia, the jury was intended to be a place for citizens to executive executive control, through consensus of their peers and within a framework created by government. Autonomous, yet in concert with other members of the community. Dependent upon society for the framework to exercise such power, yet acting against society if necessary.
In the case of the jury, it was a way for individuals to wield the executive veto power on a case-by-case basis.
However, both the militia and jury were predicated on universal participation, and a citizenry possessing "civic virtue." It's hard to imagine a society so far from such ideals when they ceded their martial duty (the militia) to the National Guard (a standing army, for all intents and purposes). And, most Americans *shamelessly* try to find ways to get out of jury duty -- even if it means lying!
The importance of universality was that those executive powers be wielded by a group of individuals who truly represent society at large.
The importance of civic virtue was that those executive powers be wielded by a group who reached consensus through deliberation of "the common good," not their own self interest (such as all the jurors just wanting to go home and get back to their World of Warcraft, or copulating.).
Considering the society we've become, I'm not sure the "fully informed jury" (or jury nullification -- jurors doing more than just weighing the facts of the case) is such a hot idea. It would be like giving 5 year olds the key to the car and telling them to behave like grown ups (because that's what the founding generation envisioned).
|
