George Zimmerman found not guilty

[Peeps]

she did the right thing

justice isnt about what you feel in your heart, but what is the letter of the law

I pity the guy tried for minor pot posession by a jury with Peeps on it. I'd agree that emotion is not a good justification for a guilty/ not guilty decision, but frequently the letter of the law is equally bad.

Yo, Peeps is right here. This juror did the morally right thing as it's not up to the her to try and put a little fixin' on laws by not following them or ignoring the orders of the judge, not matter how misguided they may be. I feel Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, but I was not a juror on that case and if the prosecution didn't meet the standards of Florida law, then he must be found innocent.

You folks do have conventional wisdom on your side but the entire purose of a jury is lost on me if it is not intended to serve as an outlet for popular opinion. If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality, then why not opt for a continental system where a panel of judges tries a case. After all, they are well schooled on matters of law.

the minute you start enforcing the law via emotions it is no longer justice but vengence

[Birds in Hell]

I definitely don't want to live in a world where juries serve as an outlet for popular opinion.

Part and parcel that is what they are, a garnered collective of the common [people] which used to be assumed as the popular opinion. Is your issue here how they're interpreted and realeased by the greater media?

The point is that whatever public opinion is (to the extent that it can even be determined) should have no bearing on the process of reasoning that a jury engages in.

[simple schoolboy]

I definitely don't want to live in a world where juries serve as an outlet for popular opinion.

You'd rather live in a world where juror instructions and mandatory minimums mean that generally white offenders with cocaine possession convictions get substantially less time than generally black crack cocaine offenders*? Popular opinion also means that just one obstinate juror out of twelve results in a hung jury. Not a terrible outcome if you can just retry until you get the response that you want.
*this has been somewhat 'corrected', but not before quite a substantial number of minorities were subject to the unquestionable righteousness of the LAW

You folks do have conventional wisdom on your side but the entire purpose of a jury is lost on me if it is not intended to serve as an outlet for popular opinion.

The purpose (as I understand) is to provide transparency to the legal system. Were it not for the jury system, legal decisions would be the exclusive domain of state-appointed judges. It's also intended as some kind of fail-safe as the prosecution needs to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of 12 random individuals (with the presumption that this may be a higher bar to meet than were it before only a learned judge). Popular opinion really has no role to play (nor should it).

You got at part of the issue: the interests of the state don't always correspond to the interests of the average citizen. For instance, during our revolution the crown was reduced to creating admiralty courts because the interest of the sovereign was to generate tax revenue while the interest of the average citizen was to eek out a comfortable existence, which is why colonials widely practiced jury nullification. And so it would seem we've gone full circle, what with overseas possessions and widespread ignorance/ refutation of jury nullification.

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them. These days you have the relatively impotent international court to go to, but it seems unlikely that the League of Nations had a similar claim between September 1939 and May 1945. If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

[elliseamos]

but the thing is, you say he started the fight, the evidence that was at hand (not the presumption of what happened cause you think its a shitty law) suggested otherwise

i only mean he never should have gotten out of his car. that started a face-to-face interaction which in this instance (regardless of who's telling the story) was destined to be a fight.

[Birds in Hell]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

[simple schoolboy]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

And to that I have no response, so I suppose we'll agree to disagree?

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

I appreciate that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly, but what does one do when one sovereign disregards the public's clearly stated opinion? See: California or Colorado with respect to medical or outright legal cannabis?

[oasisfan35]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

And to that I have no response, so I suppose we'll agree to disagree?

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

I appreciate that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly, but what does one do when one sovereign disregards the public's clearly stated opinion? See: California or Colorado with respect to medical or outright legal cannabis?

Outsider, but how was it clearly stated?

[simple schoolboy]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

And to that I have no response, so I suppose we'll agree to disagree?

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

I appreciate that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly, but what does one do when one sovereign disregards the public's clearly stated opinion? See: California or Colorado with respect to medical or outright legal cannabis?

Outsider, but how was it clearly stated?

Public referendums with more than fifty percent of the vote legalizing medical marijuana in the former and recreational in the latter. Since then the federal government has raided numerous medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the confines of state law in California, and if I'm not mistaken done something similar in Colorado. In the case of the former (possibly both), I believe that multi-decade sentences have been handed down or plead to for the proprietors of said establishments.

[oasisfan35]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

And to that I have no response, so I suppose we'll agree to disagree?

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

I appreciate that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly, but what does one do when one sovereign disregards the public's clearly stated opinion? See: California or Colorado with respect to medical or outright legal cannabis?

Outsider, but how was it clearly stated?

Public referendums with more than fifty percent of the vote legalizing medical marijuana in the former and recreational in the latter. Since then the federal government has raided numerous medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the confines of state law in California, and if I'm not mistaken done something similar in Colorado. In the case of the former (possibly both), I believe that multi-decade sentences have been handed down or plead to for the proprietors of said establishments.

Have the referendums been ratified?

[simple schoolboy]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

And to that I have no response, so I suppose we'll agree to disagree?

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

I appreciate that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly, but what does one do when one sovereign disregards the public's clearly stated opinion? See: California or Colorado with respect to medical or outright legal cannabis?

Outsider, but how was it clearly stated?

Public referendums with more than fifty percent of the vote legalizing medical marijuana in the former and recreational in the latter. Since then the federal government has raided numerous medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the confines of state law in California, and if I'm not mistaken done something similar in Colorado. In the case of the former (possibly both), I believe that multi-decade sentences have been handed down or plead to for the proprietors of said establishments.

Have the referendums been ratified?

Yes, in the case of California it was a constitutional amendment, so it was ratified as soon at it was passed. The feds claim that they only go after dispensaries that violate state law but that does not at all seem to be the case. Colorado has had medical marijuana under similar circumstances for a couple years and will soon roll out recreational marijuana as well with similar state oversight.

[oasisfan35]

If we go by Judge Dread rules where the law is the law and the only metric for morality...

I don't think this is what anyone is claiming. On that point, however, I don't think there exists any higher authority than law. We all have our own individual sense of morality, of course, but I have little time for any person claiming moral authority to act outside of the law - or, to be more specific, little time for those claiming the legal repercussions of doing so are somehow undeserved or unjust.

I'm fairly certain all those claiming the Nuremberg defense were acting well within the laws they were subject to at the time they committed them. And for that we (possibly correctly) hung them.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the Nuremberg defense in the sense that prosecuting individuals for acts that were lawful at the time sits very uneasily with me.

And to that I have no response, so I suppose we'll agree to disagree?

If your goal is law and order, then sure you can claim that the law of the land is the final say. In practical terms, it frequently is. That is not to say that it always deserves to be, nor should it be on any number of trivial crimes.

I see that as an argument for more lenient sentencing or (preferably) for changing the law so that minor transgressions aren't criminal offences.

I appreciate that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly, but what does one do when one sovereign disregards the public's clearly stated opinion? See: California or Colorado with respect to medical or outright legal cannabis?

Outsider, but how was it clearly stated?

Public referendums with more than fifty percent of the vote legalizing medical marijuana in the former and recreational in the latter. Since then the federal government has raided numerous medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the confines of state law in California, and if I'm not mistaken done something similar in Colorado. In the case of the former (possibly both), I believe that multi-decade sentences have been handed down or plead to for the proprietors of said establishments.

Have the referendums been ratified?

Yes, in the case of California it was a constitutional amendment, so it was ratified as soon at it was passed. The feds claim that they only go after dispensaries that violate state law but that does not at all seem to be the case.

Colorado has had medical marijuana under similar circumstances for a couple years and will soon roll out recreational marijuana as well with similar state oversight.

I would gather they can walk in to any purveyor they want but only pull those in error of the law to court.

I would expound further but we should probably have a separate thread for the legality of medicinal marijuana sans race implications.

[simple schoolboy]

I would gather they can walk in to any purveyor they want but only pull those in error of the law to court.

I would expound further but we should probably have a separate thread for the legality of medicinal marijuana sans race implications.

We are getting a bit off topic, which is entirely my fault but I'm segueing back which is this: they may be at fault with regards to federal law but are generally well within their rights at the state level. The federal grand juries that are convened for such crimes are not informed that these individuals tried to do right by their communities. (Oh, and the Obama administration has been substantially more aggressive in pursuing these cases than the Bush administration, despite Barack's well documented love of the ganja.) A federal juror who has respect only for the law and not for any sense of propriety, proportionality or morality has no choice but to find these medical marijuana purveyors guilty and sentence them to decades behind bars. Their crime was to provide a service to an informed consumer base (well, informed as much as their 4/20 referral doctors told them), and no one was harmed in the process. I don't know how many more decades we are supposed to wait for the law to catch up with basic human decency.

[harmless]

He'll have to live with himself for the rest of his life. He may not be guilty legally but I and many other people will consider him morally guilty, forever. RIP Trayvon Martin.

[Peeps]

i am pretty sure he will live with himself easily enough

[i got bugs]

chances are, they were probably both assholes

nba players, hollywood, etc needs to shut the fuck up about this also.... dewayne wade, jay z.. neither of you knew trayvon personally or were there to witness what happened.. if they knew so much about this, take the fuckin stand or somethin..

[harmless]

chances are, they were probably both assholes

nba players, hollywood, etc needs to shut the fuck up about this also.... dewayne wade, jay z.. neither of you knew trayvon personally or were there to witness what happened.. if they knew so much about this, take the fuckin stand or somethin..

Do you know any more than they do? We're all allowed an opinion. Some people are crying institutionalised racism. Let them.

[Whitey McTeeth]

I don't know much about this, but I think this Zimmerman guy shot him.

[i got bugs]

chances are, they were probably both assholes

nba players, hollywood, etc needs to shut the fuck up about this also.... dewayne wade, jay z.. neither of you knew trayvon personally or were there to witness what happened.. if they knew so much about this, take the fuckin stand or somethin..

Do you know any more than they do? We're all allowed an opinion. Some people are crying institutionalised racism. Let them.

i dont know shit and thats why i dont have an opinion, other than theres a good chance they were both partially to blame in some way

i just dont like 'my opinion is im for the black guy just because im a black guy'

if i went downtown and got shot by a hispanic i doubt kanye west will tweet shit, let alone even know in the first place

[harmless]

chances are, they were probably both assholes

nba players, hollywood, etc needs to shut the fuck up about this also.... dewayne wade, jay z.. neither of you knew trayvon personally or were there to witness what happened.. if they knew so much about this, take the fuckin stand or somethin..

Do you know any more than they do? We're all allowed an opinion. Some people are crying institutionalised racism. Let them.

i dont know shit and thats why i dont have an opinion, other than theres a good chance they were both partially to blame in some way

i just dont like 'my opinion is im for the black guy just because im a black guy'

if i went downtown and got shot by a hispanic i doubt kanye west will tweet shit, let alone even know in the first place

No disrespect meant, but that's kind of idiotic. As a black man, Kanye will have more knowledge and experience of racial profiling, prejudice, racism and murder cover-ups than you.

Not to mention the fact that people can't be denigrated for stating their opinions in public. I mean, look, you've just done it, and presumably you think you're allowed this opinion and we could do with hearing it.

[harmless]

Also, you're allowed opinions on what you don't know about, that's fine. But your bias is that this guy didn't shoot him, for no reason that I can see. We all have biases and they inform our opinions; you've stated yours precisely by trying not to state one.