Please time yourself.

[OldAirmail]

How long did it take for you to understand & start laughing.

[Romulus111VADT]

How long did it take for you to understand & start laughing.

Bet that would be a shocking event......

[CrashII]

Bet that would end in manslaughter charges...

[OldAirmail]

Bet that would end in manslaughter charges...

I bet that could end in a Darwin Award.


DARWIN AWARDS
"honor those who do the most to improve our genepool-- by removing themselves from it, thereby ensuring that the next gen is descended from one fewer idiot. "


If I were a juror at a trial for whoever wrote that on an outlet, there is NO WAY that I'd vote guilty.

Stupidity cures its self.

[CrashII]

Looking at the socket I guess it's a USA model? Them peoples sue your plump bottom (posh for fat arse) for serving hot coffee. Don't be too certain on the not guilty part...

[OldAirmail]

Looking at the socket I guess it's a USA model? Them peoples sue your plump bottom (posh for fat arse) for serving hot coffee. Don't be too certain on the not guilty part...

The socket is indeed a US standard 110/120 volt outlet.



As to the other - Yes, and No.

I'm not sure if any other country allows Jury Nullification.

It does still apply to juries in the US.

Although most judges will try to prevent the jury from learning about it.



Both references are fairly short and to the point: A person may have done the thing that they are accused of, but the jury disagrees with the law, or how it's being applied in the case before them.

Read the first one from Penn State, or this one from the University of Missouri Law School - Jury Nullification.



What is this? An old law fron the 1700s?

No. As recently as 1952 The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed Jury Nullification.

From the Penn State site;

"In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:

"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges...."



From the University of Missouri Law School;

"Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding."




I've been selected for jury duty twice.

Side note =============================================================================

Before I talk about that, most of you may need an explanation.

If the case is a simple one 20, or so, people may be called together. This is a "jury pool".

From these 20 people, 12 (usually) will be selected.

The lawyers will question the jurors to determine if any should be removed from the pool.

This is quite sensible. You don't want a raciest on the jury of a black man accused of a crime.

Likewise, you don't want a misogynist in the jury of a woman accused of a crime.

The lawyer for each side is usually give a certain number of uncontested juror dismissals. After that, they can question each attempted juror dismissal.

End of note ==========================================================================


On the first instance, a jury was made up before I was questioned.



The second one that I was called for concerned a patent dispute against Microsoft.

What was absolutely fascinating was that the two lawyers were picking the less educated, and simpler, jurors. And dismissing the better educated jurors.

The only professional was a teacher in her late fifties/early sixties!


My guess?

I think that the lawyers wanted a selection of jurors that they could manipulate to see their side.



That is the kind of jury that awarded a stupid woman, who went through a McDonalds, ordered hot coffee, AND PUT IT BETWEEN HERE LEGS AS SHE DROVE AWAY!

[Fozzer]

Whenever I see a photo, etc, like that, I wonder how long it took for someone to photo-shop it, and post it as humourous, or, in real life, quickly crayon a message on it whilst no one is looking, and walk away with a big grin!.... ...!

I could do both!.... ...!

Paul... ... ... ...!

[H]

I was keyed in at the start and too shocked to laugh...

[CrashII]

@Oldairmail.

Thanks for the explanation. Since we don't have juries in court in the Netherlands, I'm unfamiliar with the system. What I know of it comes from tv or movies. To me it seems like a strange kind of justice. For example let's take a murder case. Who in the end determines the punishment? Is that the jury or a judge? Can a jury sentence someone to death? Or do they just say that he/she is guilty or not? And how can a bunch of 'uneducated' people decide in matters to complex for their understanding? Can a jury be held accountable for a wrong decision? Say that someone is guilty when he/she is not?

Does every case that comes before a judge have a jury? Or only the big cases?

I know, many questions...

[OldAirmail]

@CrashII

I'm not all that much interested in the law, per say. I'm more interested in history, with the history of "law" being only a small part of that interest.

In the US, back in the late '50s/early '60s, the basic legal system was a regular part of education.

I suppose that nowadays, kids learn how the law works during their first arrest. Certainly be their second or third arrest if they're particularly stupid.



This may be more than you want.


Please understand, most of what I'll say was learned 40-50 years ago. So I might make a mistake or two.


Essentially, the US laws were based on the "English common law".

English common law
"The system of law that has developed in England from approximately 1066 to the present."

Common Law is just that: What has commonly been the rule in past courts.



The Magna Carta of 1215, among a few other things, "further secured trial by jury..."

"For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood.

In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence. To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these"

Years later most of that was "forgotten".



Later, people could be accused of a crime in secret (see Star Chamber). Although this is a really good system if you are the one in power, a lot of people disliked it.


Over on this side of the pond, the colonials had a few problems with the British system.

For one thing, a person accused of a crime might have to be sent back to the "old country" for a trial. Needless to say, the people who would "try" him in court were not his "equals", and his means of defending himself didn't exist 3,000 miles from home.


All That is Substantial and Beneficial in a Trial by Jury
Edmund Burke, 1777
"A person is brought hither in the dungeon of a ship’s hold; thence he is vomited into a dungeon on land, loaded with irons, unfurnished with money, unsupported by friends, three thousand miles from all means of calling upon or confronting evidence, where no one local circumstance that tends to detect perjury can possibly be judged of; such a person may be executed according to form, but he can never be tried according to justice."


And therein is the cause and effect of "Jury Nullification".

A jury in the colonies would often not convict a person of, what they considered, an un-just law. So the British figured that the only way for a proper trial was to ship them to England.

Even the judicial reform of Alexander II of Russia included Jury Nullification:
"... jurors not only could decide whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty but also could decide that the defendant was guilty but not to be punished..."



In short: Portions of the US laws were copied from British Common (what was "common") Law. But as in everything else, they were changed to suit the times and place.

As the population expanded west, laws were changed further to suit those times and places. So where the laws of Netherlands, or "England" may be homogeneous, the laws in the US can be somewhat different, one state from the other.


What gets tried, and how it gets tried, can and will, vary.

Juries will also vary. By crime, circumstances, customs, and (of course) by state.

The same is true as to whether a jury decides on the fines or penalty.

That will help to explain why Lawyers must pass the "Bar" (test) in each state that they want to practice.



End note I have/had??? a relative hung as a horse thief back in the 1800s.

To put that in perspective -

Steeling houses was a punishable crime.

BUT steeling the house that a man was riding out west could result in his death.

Different times, different places.

[PhantomTweak]

from British Common (what was "common") Law

as opposed to the law for the nobility, I think. Might be that the law was "common" to all persons, unlike previously, where the laws were different for nobility and commoners. Still are, come to think, see O.J. Simpson, or Justin Beiber... Not sure. It was a little before my time...I bet Paul could tell us, I think he was one of the framers of the Magna Carta....

Thankfully, 99% of my experience with the law is from watching Law and Order and CSI Miami

From what I've seen, in murder cases, as a general rule, non-death penalty cases get the sentance handed down by the judge, whereas only a jury (12 people too stupid to get out of Jury Duty! ) can actually sentance a person to death. Once again, varies by state and even by jurisdiction within the state. Also, things change over time....witness the old west judges sentancing a man to "Hang by the neck until you are dead, sir!"

As to Whether a trial uses a jury and the size there-of is usually determined by the severity of the crime, with the minor misdemeanors, traffic tickets, etc, not needing a jury.

And how can a bunch of 'uneducated' people decide in matters to complex for their understanding?

They are supposed to rely on instructions from the judge and the testimony (look up the etymology of THAT word sometime! Scary!!) from the witlesses...and yes, THAT isn't a typo. I meant WitLESS...Anyway, that's the whole idea of a "jury of his peers". Now, a person can request a Bench Trial, where the judge hears the evidence and witless testimony and makes an informed, legal decision, or one can strike a plea bargain, admitting to a usually lesser crime for a lower sentance. Again, no jury. One can also plead Nolo Contendere, which means they don't agree there is anything to contend over, but don't want to spend the time and effort fighting it, but do not admit guilt, unlike the plea bargain. No jury there either.

Can a jury be held accountable for a wrong decision?

Not normally. Trials are the State of.....or the County of...or the City of.... whatever, versus so-and-so, not the twelve names of the jury vs so-and-so. So the State is responsible for wrongful imprisonment.

Steeling houses was a punishable crime.

BUT steeling the house that a man was riding out west could result in his death.

Boy I would sure hate to have someone steal MY house, especially if I was still riding it....

Have fun all!!

Pat☺

[H]

Essentially, the US laws were based on the "English common law".
English common law
"The system of law that has developed in England from approximately 1066 to the present."

English Common Law seems vulgar to me...
and what was English after 1066 was not what true English was prior to 1066.
My mother frequently told me not to be vulgar like my Dad; the first time I heard "arse" was from my Dad when I was @20. What few, like my Mom, understand is that the "old" English words are no longer vulgar: every word we commonly speak is vulgar (Latin vulgar = English common, as in the main Roman Catholic Bible, The Vulgate, which was written in what was common Latin). Of course, some of these "old" words are less vulgar (or, more vulgar/common) for some individuals than others.
This may seem to have gone off track for the post --
but that is common here...
and with language, laws...

[Webb]

What was the original question here? Jury nullification.

Google O.J. Simpson.

[Fozzer]

I suspect that much of our wonderful, British, "vulgar" language was/is lost on the North Americans with the influx of the "prudish" Pilgrim Fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_% ... _Colony%29

Even today, many Americans are taken aback with the use of vulgar language, and is mostly not appreciated.... ....

...which is why my vulgar comments in the Humour Forum are mostly ignored...except by the vulgar, irreligious, heathen Brits!... ...!

Most of the fun is obtained in the use of "vulgar" language!
...which is why I get thrown out of Sainsbury's at regular intervals.... ...!

Paul....Oh, deary me.... ...!

[OldAirmail]

Steeling houses was a punishable crime.

BUT steeling the house that a man was riding out west could result in his death.

Boy I would sure hate to have someone steal MY house, especially if I was still riding it....

Have fun all!!

Pat☺

Pat, it really doesn't matter; house, or horse.

Trying to steal a house out from under someone big enough to "ride" it, probably will result in your death.