Jury Nullification

[Tonington]

Ahh, sorry, I misquoted the verdict. It was First degree, the judge said second degree and manslaughter was out of the question.

I can't really say what I would have voted, I don't know all the facts. But the fact that he shot the man five times seems like clear intent.

 

[Kreskin]

I saw that......an appeal will probably be in the works as the jury was instructed improperly.

Personally, I'd have voted for acquittal.

Curious Colpy, under what grounds would you find him innocent.

 

[Tonington]

He's definitely guilty of murder, the big question was whethor or not it was pre-meditated. That makes the difference between first and second degree in this case. I would think the prosecution highlighted the fact that he shot the man 5 times out of however many shots he fired and he brought a gun with him. Under our criminal code, that is enough for at least second degree murder, if not first degree. Ten years is the minimum for parole eligibility for second degree murder. The judges actions are very fishy to me...

Edit:
On second thought they aren't really that fishy. Perhaps from a legal standpoint all of the evidence presented was enough to meet our legal systems requirements.

 

[TenPenny]

He's definitely guilty of murder, the big question was whethor or not it was pre-meditated.

From what I understand, the father went there ARMED, and shot the guy at least once in the back, so it would be hard to argue it was a spontaneous thing. It's funny that many of the same people who believe there should be no gun control also believe you should be able to murder people at will, because you believe they have harmed someone. That is a somewhat scary combination. The daughter got out of rehab and voluntarily went to her boyfriend/drug dealer's place. What right does the father have to interfere? What if the boyfriend/drug dealer was a bootlegger, instead? Is it okay to murder a bootlegger if they are supplying your daughter with alcohol? What's the age limit? What if it was cigarettes, and the girl was too young to buy them on her own? Is murder okay then? What it it's your ex-spouse who is allowing your child to smoke - can you shoot them?

 

[Tonington]

. What right does the father have to interfere? What if the boyfriend/drug dealer was a bootlegger, instead? Is it okay to murder a bootlegger if they are supplying your daughter with alcohol? What's the age limit? What if it was cigarettes, and the girl was too young to buy them on her own? Is murder okay then? What it it's your ex-spouse who is allowing your child to smoke - can you shoot them?

Exactly, that's the slippery slope you get on when it becomes acceptable to murder.

 

[Colpy]

Curious Colpy, under what grounds would you find him innocent.

I didn't say he was innocent...........that is not a finding of any court..........I would find him "not guilty".

That is why juries exist......to ensure justice is done.

I'm curious......why do you think juries are a part of the system?

If the system is only to ajudicate on the basis of law, as opposed to justice, then the judgement of a panel of judges a la Roman Law would be more appropriate. After all, they have the expertise.......


I would have a problem convicted a man who killed a scumbag in defense of his 16 year old daughter. I'm sorry we have become so hidebound, so sanctimonious, so self-righteously in love with those who rule us that we can not defy the institution simply because it is RIGHT to do so.........even when that institution incorporates within itself the mechanism intended to do just that.

There will be an appeal, on the basis of the Supreme Court judgements listed above, the man was denied a jury trial............

I have no hope he will ever be acquitted, the people on the jury simply don't understand their proper role.........and the judges sure as hell aren't going to tell them.

 

[TenPenny]

in defense of his 16 year old daughter

That's where the problem lies. The 16 year old daughter went, of her own volition, to the apartment where her boyfriend lived, and when her father came to get her, didn't want to leave.

That's somewhat hard to fit under the category of defending her. And that's where the problem is. She wasn't held against her will, and she wasn't 12, she was 16.

Let's throw in a hypothetical twist: say the father had been sexually abusing her. Is he still allowed to murder her boyfriend if he doesn't like the guy?

 

[Colpy]

That's where the problem lies. The 16 year old daughter went, of her own volition, to the apartment where her boyfriend lived, and when her father came to get her, didn't want to leave.

That's somewhat hard to fit under the category of defending her. And that's where the problem is. She wasn't held against her will, and she wasn't 12, she was 16.

Let's throw in a hypothetical twist: say the father had been sexually abusing her. Is he still allowed to murder her boyfriend if he doesn't like the guy?

What you say is true enough...........and were the guy simply her teenage boyfriend, or even simply her 24 year old boyfriend, I would agree entirely.

He was not.

He was her drug dealer. She was his slave, and he had her chained to him just as surely as if the chains were made of steel instead of morphine.........

I understand people's problem with my stance on this.........I know it isn't popular, but I really don't give a damn about cold statutes printed in lawbooks. I think I might have done the same to save my child, and I am not a bad man.

And that is why I would not convict.

 

[Tonington]

That's also why you probably wouldn't get past the selection stage for jury members.

 

[L Gilbert]

Who'd want to anyway. A buddy in the Okanagan had to do jury duty. It sux.

 

[TenPenny]

She was his slave, and he had her chained to him just as surely as if the chains were made of steel instead of morphine.........

I have a problem when people who believe there should be no gun control, also believe they have the right to determine these things, and murder people based on their own interpretations of what is going on.

 

[Just the Facts]

Yeah, well, I've always thought the "cowboy defense" should be enshrined in law.

The "cowboy defense"?

You know......"he needed killin'".

Which law applied of course makes it ok for the boy's father to kill the girl and her father. The girl because she most definitely must have been the biggest drug sleaze (newly addicted my foot - try newly discovered to be addicted) in town whose enticements were the only reason his son had any involvement with drugs whatsoever. And the father, well, because "he kilt ma boy!"

And so the tangled web gets weaved.

 

[Just the Facts]

He was her drug dealer. She was his slave, and he had her chained to him just as surely as if the chains were made of steel instead of morphine.........

I haven't researched this specific case at all so I may be wrong, but that sounds like a presumption. Maybe he was her slave. Maybe he was so blinded by her sexual favours that he would do anything to keep from losing her, including being her front man in dealing drugs. Maybe...

 

[Kreskin]

I didn't say he was innocent...........that is not a finding of any court..........I would find him "not guilty".

That is why juries exist......to ensure justice is done.

I'm curious......why do you think juries are a part of the system?

If the system is only to ajudicate on the basis of law, as opposed to justice, then the judgement of a panel of judges a la Roman Law would be more appropriate. After all, they have the expertise.......


I would have a problem convicted a man who killed a scumbag in defense of his 16 year old daughter. I'm sorry we have become so hidebound, so sanctimonious, so self-righteously in love with those who rule us that we can not defy the institution simply because it is RIGHT to do so.........even when that institution incorporates within itself the mechanism intended to do just that.

There will be an appeal, on the basis of the Supreme Court judgements listed above, the man was denied a jury trial............

I have no hope he will ever be acquitted, the people on the jury simply don't understand their proper role.........and the judges sure as hell aren't going to tell them.

Not guilty by reason of what? Self righteousness? The facts aren't in dispute. He had no gun to his own head. It wasn't self defense. He doesn't fit the legal definition of insanity. Under what foundation of Canadian Law is he to be found not guilty? By reason of his daughter didn't want to leave her scumbag boyfriend? It's right to kill people because we don't like them?

Juries evaluate the facts and determine guilt or innocence under the law. Not the law which Greenpeace thinks there should be. Not the law the NRA believes there should be. Not the law the Canadian Taxpayers Association thinks there should be. If a juror is unable to evaluate the evidence without throwing it out if he doesn't like the facts he/she has no reason to be there. They have a duty to be more than a vigilante squad or a group of Robin Hoods.

 

[missile]

I would have shot and killed the piece of filth,too..and happily spent the rest of my life in prison; that's what a father would do.

 

[Colpy]

Not guilty by reason of what? Self righteousness? The facts aren't in dispute. He had no gun to his own head. It wasn't self defense. He doesn't fit the legal definition of insanity. Under what foundation of Canadian Law is he to be found not guilty? By reason of his daughter didn't want to leave her scumbag boyfriend? It's right to kill people because we don't like them?

Juries evaluate the facts and determine guilt or innocence under the law. Not the law which Greenpeace thinks there should be. Not the law the NRA believes there should be. Not the law the Canadian Taxpayers Association thinks there should be. If a juror is unable to evaluate the evidence without throwing it out if he doesn't like the facts he/she has no reason to be there. They have a duty to be more than a vigilante squad or a group of Robin Hoods.

I sort of got carried away when I read the specifics of this case.

I had not intended for this to become a discussion of this specific case, I merely wanted the case to be a launch point for a discussion of jury nullification of the law...........which is perfectly legitimate in my view, and obviously is NOT legitimate in the view of most people here. At the riak of boring repitition, I would point out that if juries simply "evaluate the facts and determine guilt or innocence under the law" then they are a complete waste of time. That role could be much more efficiently carried out by a panel of judges, experts in law, as in done throughout continental Europe under Roman Law.

English Common Law is different. The nobles that forced King John to accept the concept of juries when he signed the Magnas Carta in 1215 were ensuring that the law be just. Then, of course, the Law was whatever precedent there was, and whatever the King said it was. The jury was to find a defendent guilty or not guilty, but it was very much understood that they were sitting in judgement not only of the individual charged, but of the law as applied in that case. To refute the practise of jury nullification is to deny and destroy that right, and to refute 800 years of Common Law IMHO.

Missile, you just want to hope I'm on the jury.

 

[Tonington]

Well, trial by jury is for the most serious criminal offences, and under the Charter we have the choice to have a judge decide or a jury. The judge still instructs the jurors on what the law says and what their responsibility is, from that the jury makes it's decision. This ensures we don't have vigilante juries imposing law. The jury I believe can make sentencing recomendations but ultimately that is the judges decision.

 

[Colpy]

My last kick at this can, I hope......

The gentleman's daughter, now 20, calls her father a hero and says "He saved my life".

She should know.

 

[Kreskin]

My last kick at this can, I hope......

The gentleman's daughter, now 20, calls her father a hero and says "He saved my life".

She should know.

That's shocking. I thought for sure she would want her father locked up for a long time.

 

[vinod1975]

Yes

:evil3: She should lock her father one or the otherday