DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[tyrannosaurus vex]

RWHN, there is a reason we have trial by jury in our judicial system, even though it is now "illegal" to tell jurors what they are there for. They are not only in the room to judge whether or not the accused broke a law, but to decide whether or not the law broken should apply in that case at all. A jury has the authority to effectively dismiss charges against the accused on the grounds that the law is unjust or ridiculous. In fact, I've thought about starting some kind of public education project to prepare people to do just that if they are selected for jury duty and they disagree with the law the State is trying to enforce, either generally or in the particular situation they are being asked to weigh.

Citizens have an inherent right to disobey unjust laws. The government's authority does not extend to tyranny, and tyranny is any situation in which the government's decrees must be followed whether the People agree to them or not. It doesn't matter who has the power to inflict punishment on who for what reason, and the threat of retribution is no reason to shy away from your rights.

[AFK]

RWHN, there is a reason we have trial by jury in our judicial system, even though it is now "illegal" to tell jurors what they are there for. They are not only in the room to judge whether or not the accused broke a law, but to decide whether or not the law broken should apply in that case at all. A jury has the authority to effectively dismiss charges against the accused on the grounds that the law is unjust or ridiculous. In fact, I've thought about starting some kind of public education project to prepare people to do just that if they are selected for jury duty and they disagree with the law the State is trying to enforce, either generally or in the particular situation they are being asked to weigh.

Yes.  And those who end up in the correctional system go through that judicial system.  Obviously those for whom the jury thought were unjustly accussed, arrested, and indicted, their fate was not to become a part of the population.  And the public education you are talking about would be the advocacy and activism I was referring to. 

Citizens have an inherent right to disobey unjust laws. The government's authority does not extend to tyranny, and tyranny is any situation in which the government's decrees must be followed whether the People agree to them or not. It doesn't matter who has the power to inflict punishment on who for what reason, and the threat of retribution is no reason to shy away from your rights.

I agree with that philosophically.  Of course one person's tyranny may be another's public safety on a case by case basis.  And this is why I said in my previous post one has to weigh the costs when knowingly violating a law.  If one feels it is intrinsically important to violate a law for the good of liberty, so be it.  And that's a fine virtue to have if the law is deemed worth violating.  However, that doesn't make the fact go away that you'll still probably be subject to punishment anyway.  Especially if you are in a minority opposing it.  I'm not saying you shouldn't oppose and disobey.  But the likely realities will be there regardless. 

[Honey]

CA May Soon Spend More on Prisons than Colleges
Thursday May 24, 2007

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's state budget for 2007-2008 allocates $10 billion for prisons, compared to $12 billion for higher education. An analysis of spending growth projects that prison spending will exceed education spending in less than five years.

For an even starker comparison, consider that the proposed 2008 federal budget allocates only $6.7 billion for running the federal prison system. How many prisoners does California detain compared to the U.S. federal prison system? On May 16, 2007, California state prisons housed 171,608 inmates, compared to 198,108 inmates reported in the all of the nation's federal prisons on May 21.

California's proposed 2008 prison budget sets aside more than $7.4 billion to expand the state's prisons capacity by 40,000 new beds. The 2008 U.S. government budget spends only $169 million to expand the capacity of federal prisons.

Also See:
California to Ship Prisoners to Other States
U.S. Prison Population Tops 2 Million
Want to Live Longer? Try Prison
Supreme Court Backs Religious Rights of Prisoners

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2007/05/24/ca-may-soon-spend-more-on-prisons-than-colleges.htm

When governments spend more on prisons than education, I think the time has come to ask Why?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ok, so rather than volunteering, I'd say that they make the choice to do as they will and when their will bucks the States... State wins. That seems to be correct. It's nearly the antithesis of what the country started out as, but it does seem to be the reality of today.

Jury Nullification would help (can you imagine informing the Jury of their actual job...  ). In the end though, it should never be a question of "Well, the Man says its illegal and its not hard NOT to do it, so that's OK.

That... is Bullshit. (please note the "is" ness of this sentence)

[AFK]

Ok, so rather than volunteering, I'd say that they make the choice to do as they will and when their will bucks the States... State wins. That seems to be correct. It's nearly the antithesis of what the country started out as, but it does seem to be the reality of today.

Jury Nullification would help (can you imagine informing the Jury of their actual job...  ). In the end though, it should never be a question of "Well, the Man says its illegal and its not hard NOT to do it, so that's OK.

That... is Bullshit. (please note the "is" ness of this sentence)

First, thanks for giving me a civil response to what I posted. 

Second, I can understand where you are coming from, but I think it is going to vary from person to person.  From my perspective, as a Father, as much as I might disagree with a particular law, does it make sense for me to risk getting arrested and imprisoned for violating that law?  Is it worth it to my daughter and my wife to make that decision?  If I am violating a law in the name of protecting or defending them, yes, there can be an argument for some justification.  Like, if some guy broke into my house threatening my family, I'm not going to mull over the legality of shooting the guy in the face.  On the other hand, in terms of something like drugs.  Is it really worth it to my family to buck that policy?  Do I really need those drugs THAT badly that I will risk the stability of my family?  I guess that's what I'm getting at is that it sounds fine and dandy on paper to say "Screw the Man", but the reality is for some there are consequences that extend beyond their own person.  So it's an individual, case by case thing. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ok, so rather than volunteering, I'd say that they make the choice to do as they will and when their will bucks the States... State wins. That seems to be correct. It's nearly the antithesis of what the country started out as, but it does seem to be the reality of today.

Jury Nullification would help (can you imagine informing the Jury of their actual job...  ). In the end though, it should never be a question of "Well, the Man says its illegal and its not hard NOT to do it, so that's OK.

That... is Bullshit. (please note the "is" ness of this sentence)

First, thanks for giving me a civil response to what I posted. 

Second, I can understand where you are coming from, but I think it is going to vary from person to person.  From my perspective, as a Father, as much as I might disagree with a particular law, does it make sense for me to risk getting arrested and imprisoned for violating that law?  Is it worth it to my daughter and my wife to make that decision?  If I am violating a law in the name of protecting or defending them, yes, there can be an argument for some justification.  Like, if some guy broke into my house threatening my family, I'm not going to mull over the legality of shooting the guy in the face.  On the other hand, in terms of something like drugs.  Is it really worth it to my family to buck that policy?  Do I really need those drugs THAT badly that I will risk the stability of my family?  I guess that's what I'm getting at is that it sounds fine and dandy on paper to say "Screw the Man", but the reality is for some there are consequences that extend beyond their own person.  So it's an individual, case by case thing. 

I think though that we're talking about two different things.

If someone takes on responsibilities, they will probably have to sacrifice some freedoms. No argument there...

However, the current judicial system is not simply flawed, its horrifically broken. In the 'war on drugs' there hasn't been either of the key controls used to ensure that the government isn't fucking us over. We didn't vote for Marijuana prohibition... some assholes made some noise and scared some people and ... no vote. So government oversteps.... However, we have a safety for this, Jury Nullification. The jury is supposed to judge not only the guilt of the individual, but also the fairness of the law they broke. Judges now deny lawyers the right to inform juries of this.

On at least three occasions (most recent being the Rosenthall case), jurors after the fact, said if they had known, they would have nullified the Federal law he was tried under.  That means,  if the American judicial system were being operated as designed marijuana would most likely, no longer be illegal, or at the very least, the prohibition laws would have been substantially revised.

I cannot agree though, that the "criminal" is at fault. The individual is being held to a set of laws that he did not agree to live by (the Constitution). Further, some of those laws weren't agreed to by anyone except some asses in Washington (like pot prohibition).

I personally don't like the idea that some spags in wigs could sign a piece of paper and somehow subjugate me to GWB. However, I coupld live with having the birth to death "contract" if all parties to the contract uphold all parts of the contract (including the right of a jury to say "No, Fed Spags, that's stupid").

So are those who break the law responsible for their actions? YES.
Does that make the current system "Ok"  or "acceptable"? I don't think so.

Breaking the law is an individual choice, and I respect anyone who makes that choice consciously (either way). However, we are all victims of a legal system thats broken... extremely broken.

But what can we expect from a government which does small things poorly, yet somehow does big things even more poorly?

[AFK]

So are those who break the law responsible for their actions? YES.
Does that make the current system "Ok"  or "acceptable"? I don't think so.

And THIS is what I was trying to get at initially.  That even if it is "unacceptable" you are still responsible for the results of your actions.

Okay, so the system is broken.  How do you spags propose to fix it?  Because I can tell you right now individual acts of civil disobedience are not going to do a damn thing.  Those in charge of enforcing the law have little to no sway in how the laws are actually written.  They are just doing their job.  Sure, some may be a bit more zealous than others, but by in large, they are just enforcing what is on the books.  So what are the solutions?  Solutions that would actually produce change and not material for the police blotter section in the newspapers. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I think a public awareness program about Jury Nullification would do a lot of good.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think a public awareness program about Jury Nullification would do a lot of good.

Well, for the most part, Jury nullification means that the Jury can say "Not Guilty" even if they think the person to be guilty.. but think the 'crime' is not a crime. However, most judges now instruct the jury specifically instruct the jury that they MUST judge the case based on the facts and apply the law as stated, no matter what their personal opinion. Judges have also gagged lawyers and threated 'contempt' charges if they ask the jury to nullify the law.

In short, 'awareness' does no good if the guy in charge 'nullifies' your ability to nullify

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, to be fair, Jury Nullification has been used for some pretty sick purposes in the past. All white southern juries used nullification to free white supremacists on trial for racial killings.

Double edged sword etc.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

jury nullification is an indicator of the cultural validity of certain laws. even when it is used for sick shit as Rat said, it subjects the law to the will of the People. Personally I don't believe all laws (those prohibiting capital crimes, for example) should be subject to Jurry Nullification. But most laws should be.

Juries may be instructed by the Judge that they must enforce the law as it is written, but that doesn't matter if the members of that jury have previously been educated about the role of the jury. They don't have to specifically say, "not guilty on the grounds that the law is stupid." They can return a simple "Not Guilty" verdict and give no 'reason' for it at all. And a clear Not Guilty verdict cannot be questioned by any court or appeal.

Of course, a larger problem is the increasingly frequent use of statutory punishments that never involve a jury. Technically speaking, we have the right to a trial by jury -- there should be no such thing as even a traffic ticket that says you're not allowed to contest the charges in any court, but that is what they say now.

The judicial system is the chief safeguard against tyranny, because it is that system that allows individuals to be heard against the enormous machinery of the State. If we are going to "fix the system," it must include restoring the proper function and importance of the Judiciary in the process of government.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

jury nullification is an indicator of the cultural validity of certain laws. even when it is used for sick shit as Rat said, it subjects the law to the will of the People. Personally I don't believe all laws (those prohibiting capital crimes, for example) should be subject to Jurry Nullification. But most laws should be.

Juries may be instructed by the Judge that they must enforce the law as it is written, but that doesn't matter if the members of that jury have previously been educated about the role of the jury. They don't have to specifically say, "not guilty on the grounds that the law is stupid." They can return a simple "Not Guilty" verdict and give no 'reason' for it at all. And a clear Not Guilty verdict cannot be questioned by any court or appeal.

Of course, a larger problem is the increasingly frequent use of statutory punishments that never involve a jury. Technically speaking, we have the right to a trial by jury -- there should be no such thing as even a traffic ticket that says you're not allowed to contest the charges in any court, but that is what they say now.

The judicial system is the chief safeguard against tyranny, because it is that system that allows individuals to be heard against the enormous machinery of the State. If we are going to "fix the system," it must include restoring the proper function and importance of the Judiciary in the process of government.

Well said, and to RWHN's point... that will require activism and lobbying and ... well American politics.

[Cain]

Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

I didn't have time to elaborate then.

I do now, fortunately.

Firstly, thats not how the law or the political system works and you and I and pretty much everyone else here knows it.  Power doesn't lie with consent, it lies with men with guns who can beat and kill you with impunity.  So to speak of going to prison as being any sort of choice is a gross mischaracterization. 

Secondly, your assumption is, everything else being equal, of the neutrality of the law.  Which is a complete farce.  Laws on paper don't match laws in the application.  We know laws get applied unequally, and factors like gender, race, age and occupation get factored in where there is little relevance.  Check out the usage rates for ethnic minorities and majorities when it comes to drugs, and then the imprisonment rates and sentence lengths.  Or as the French have discovered: "the legality of identity checks carried out "preventatively", whose multiplication has provoked more disturbances of public order than they prevent, should be brought into question".  Interestingly, they also note a discrepancy when it comes to ethnicities and violence, in that ID card laws lead to a lot more violent confrontations with the police when people of foreign extraction or appearance are present.  Laws will be used to target outgroups.  Its unfair, but its also a truism that if people are pushing to get you because of your skin colour, age or gender, then they will find a way to do it.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-389586,0.html (in French, account required)

Thirdly we have the "no-harm" principle.  If your actions do not result in harm but are still 'illegal', then why bother punishing, unless you are some sort of automaton or punishment freak?  The British government are king of this, culminating in the ASBO, where magistrates, on the basis of hearsay evidence, can designate any action they wish illegal and punish that action with imprisonment and/or fines at their discretion.  This has, in the past, had people with Tourettes Syndrome under court-ordered house arrest, among other things.

Which neatly brings me onto point 4.  Governments are paper-churning machines who always want to be seen as "doing something".  Again, the British government has created 3,000 new misdemeanours and felonies in the period from 1997-2006, including the crime of detonating a nuclear weapon without permission and the crime of being in a particular area without agreeing with the Prime Minister, among other things.  Because governments pass so many laws, the chance of them negatively impacting on harmful action is very low, whereas the chance of them criminalizing some innocuous triviality, like wearing a band t-shirt near Parliament or handing out critical leaflets near Party conferences, is much higher.

Also, the chance of changing these laws is low.  In our first past the post system of government, the government in power need not be (and in fact is not) the one voted for by the majority.  Secondly, parties have way more powers than citizens over the placement of MPs and coercing their votes on key pieces of legislation, making taking them to account hard.  Equally, in the US, I would be willing to bet most Representatives and Senators are listening far more to what Lockheed and Martin want than what any piddling voter says.

I'm sure I had some other points, but I think those do.  You view works perfectly...in an abstract realm where government and law work as they are intended.  Reality, however...not so good.  Some laws tend to work out pretty well.  Ones which punish people for hitting others, for example.  Those which stop bad food from being sold to the public at large.  But not all laws are made equal (not even a majority, given the current prodigous output), and should not be treated as such.  Claims to "its the law" without taking into account the actual operations and effects of that law are short-sighted in the extreme.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

I didn't have time to elaborate then.

I do now, fortunately.

Firstly, thats not how the law or the political system works and you and I and pretty much everyone else here knows it.  Power doesn't lie with consent, it lies with men with guns who can beat and kill you with impunity.  So to speak of going to prison as being any sort of choice is a gross mischaracterization. 

Secondly, your assumption is, everything else being equal, of the neutrality of the law.  Which is a complete farce.  Laws on paper don't match laws in the application.  We know laws get applied unequally, and factors like gender, race, age and occupation get factored in where there is little relevance.  Check out the usage rates for ethnic minorities and majorities when it comes to drugs, and then the imprisonment rates and sentence lengths.  Or as the French have discovered: "the legality of identity checks carried out "preventatively", whose multiplication has provoked more disturbances of public order than they prevent, should be brought into question".  Interestingly, they also note a discrepancy when it comes to ethnicities and violence, in that ID card laws lead to a lot more violent confrontations with the police when people of foreign extraction or appearance are present.  Laws will be used to target outgroups.  Its unfair, but its also a truism that if people are pushing to get you because of your skin colour, age or gender, then they will find a way to do it.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-389586,0.html (in French, account required)

Thirdly we have the "no-harm" principle.  If your actions do not result in harm but are still 'illegal', then why bother punishing, unless you are some sort of automaton or punishment freak?  The British government are king of this, culminating in the ASBO, where magistrates, on the basis of hearsay evidence, can designate any action they wish illegal and punish that action with imprisonment and/or fines at their discretion.  This has, in the past, had people with Tourettes Syndrome under court-ordered house arrest, among other things.

Which neatly brings me onto point 4.  Governments are paper-churning machines who always want to be seen as "doing something".  Again, the British government has created 3,000 new misdemeanours and felonies in the period from 1997-2006, including the crime of detonating a nuclear weapon without permission and the crime of being in a particular area without agreeing with the Prime Minister, among other things.  Because governments pass so many laws, the chance of them negatively impacting on harmful action is very low, whereas the chance of them criminalizing some innocuous triviality, like wearing a band t-shirt near Parliament or handing out critical leaflets near Party conferences, is much higher.

Also, the chance of changing these laws is low.  In our first past the post system of government, the government in power need not be (and in fact is not) the one voted for by the majority.  Secondly, parties have way more powers than citizens over the placement of MPs and coercing their votes on key pieces of legislation, making taking them to account hard.  Equally, in the US, I would be willing to bet most Representatives and Senators are listening far more to what Lockheed and Martin want than what any piddling voter says.

I'm sure I had some other points, but I think those do.  You view works perfectly...in an abstract realm where government and law work as they are intended.  Reality, however...not so good.  Some laws tend to work out pretty well.  Ones which punish people for hitting others, for example.  Those which stop bad food from being sold to the public at large.  But not all laws are made equal (not even a majority, given the current prodigous output), and should not be treated as such.  Claims to "its the law" without taking into account the actual operations and effects of that law are short-sighted in the extreme.

Bravo. It's examples like these which made Jury Nullification useful to begin with.


Reminds me of Jerry Clower's famous story called "Guilty or not?" It was about some poor farmer that desperately needed a mule for some work at his farm... without a mule he would lose the whole farm. He tried to borrow one from a guy that had lots of mules, and the man turned him down. So he stole a mule and got the work done. When he went to trial, the jury came back with "Not Guilty, but he has to give back the mule". The Judge was outraged and said they had to go back and come up with a just decision...

They returned with "Not Guilty, and he can keep the mule".

[Cain]

Hah, indeed.

Sorry, but the idea of the law being, on the whole, pretty neutral, annoys the hell out of me.  I don't deny the usefulness of laws, but they have to be the right laws, and applied with a good deal of informed situational awareness.  The authorities like to play "gotcha" with certain groups of people far too much for me to put faith in an ostensibly decent law being applied in a fair and consistent manner, unless there are safeguards in place to make sure that actually happens.