Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: San Diego Mayor Urges Jury Nullification for MJ Dispensary Case [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)46. The War on Drugs was the precursor of the War on Terror
endless war and so dangerous that Americans need to give up their rights in order to...keep them?
The War on Drugs hates the 4th amendment, too.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Asset Forfeiture laws made sure of that.
In 1997, Gringrich the Newt expressed a desire for the death penalty for marijuana possession over 2 ounces.
Yet his view of his own possession of marijuana goes like this: That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era
http://www.marijuana.org/post/16097283854/newt-gingrich-on-marijuana-from-pothead-to-death
So, people actually took a person seriously as a political spokesperson who would suggest such a dumb fuckistan, totalitarian law? Good thing he wasn't in a position to see through such a brilliant, brilliant idea. Oops. Actually, he was.
(Gingrich) introduced H.R. 4170 (Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996) to the House of Representatives, which sought to provide a sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances. Under Gingrichs proposed law, you could be put to death for possession of as little as 200 joints (close to four ounces), which is equal in volume to a carton of cigarettes.
Is it any wonder our federal system is so fucked up when this idiot was given a seat in the legislature?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And thats why the Fully Informed Jury Association exists! www.fija.org
TampaAnimusVortex
May 2013
#44
If you believe that the law is unjust, you wouldnt get on the jury. The prosecutor will ask you
rhett o rick
May 2013
#7
He doesnt have to make a big issue out of it, just tell Holder to back off. I doubt it would be
rhett o rick
May 2013
#32
Sorry my point wasnt better presented. If Pres Obama was in favor of letting the states
rhett o rick
May 2013
#43
I guarantee that will happen in this case. But it's not necessary. The prosecutor will always
rhett o rick
May 2013
#13
I agree but the discussion was about "jury nullification". I dont think that's an option. Sure you
rhett o rick
May 2013
#33
If you believe the law is unjust, then you would be lying if you said you could convict.
rhett o rick
May 2013
#37
What the judge will say is that if the prosecutor proved that the defendant was
rhett o rick
May 2013
#40
So, in your opinion, the crime has one and only one element? That's not how it works.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#41
"So, in your opinion..." What? Are you telling me what my opinion is? We are way off the original
rhett o rick
May 2013
#42
Jury nullification has a long history in this country, including helping to defeat the Fugitive
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#52
There is a question mark after the sentence because a question is being asked. I'm asking for your
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#49
That sounds wonderful, however, explain how jurors with that in mind get past
rhett o rick
May 2013
#59
Explain how someone gets seated on a jury if they believe the law is unjust. The prosecutor will ask
rhett o rick
May 2013
#61
Again, what would a prospective juror (that thinks the law is unjust) say when asked
rhett o rick
May 2013
#79
At the federal level, the judges commonly ask the questions of prospective jurors, not prosecutors.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#77
Because I'm a fair and open minded person, I would like to volunteer for jury duty.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#18
Southerners have engaged in jury nullification on and off for years. Failing to convict a white
byeya
May 2013
#23
Jury nullification began much earlier in the North when juries refused to convict under the Fugitive
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#53
Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, David Simon and William F. Zorzi Jr
RainDog
May 2013
#24
So smoking a little weed warrants trashing the first amendment. I wonder what Geo.Washington
byeya
May 2013
#38
The DOJ guidelines for the discretionary enforcement of the law can be found here:
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#54
Adhering to current law also lets criminals walk free and sends innocent people to jail
RainDog
May 2013
#75
What, that juries should uphold the law? I'm sorry you think that's "strident".
Donald Ian Rankin
May 2013
#71