Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 7650984" data-attributes="member: 8835">It's my guess that most people don't know the rules, and won't follow any rule that conflicts with their personal rules.Since most people follow some variation of the golden rule, they don't so much follow the laws of the land, so much as coincidentally don't collide with them.Folks drive on the correct side of the road because that's how you get along with other people (golden rule basis), not because the government has a law on the books that says so.Folks cross the solid white line onto the wide paved shoulder to make a right turn because it's convenient, and they think they are making room for through traffic coming up behind them, even though it is illegal to cross the solid white line onto the shoulder, barring an emergency (the shoulder is not a legal turning lane).Most folks don't kill people or steal because it's wrong to do so, not because there's a law that says it is a crime.I read an article a long time ago about Jury Nullification.&nbsp; One of the points the article made was that the hidden objective of a jury in a trial was also to weigh the law and it's rightness or applicability to the situation, not just whether the defendant had broken the law or not. Apparently, that idea is buried somewhere in the Constitution.&nbsp;&nbsp; According to the article, judges and lawyers aren't too keen on this element of trial law and don't spend a lot of time talking about it.&nbsp; The point of the article was for the defendant to bring this point up, so as to nullify the jury with regards to the prosecutor's objective to get a guilty verdict on the technical merit, rather than the &quot;rightness&quot; of the act.What this article reminded me of, is the issue we hear in politics of judges &quot;legislating from the bench&quot;.&nbsp; I never did any research on the legal points the article made, but if it was correct, than it seems to me that the very point of a trial is to correct for bad laws by &quot;legislating from the bench&quot; because juries and judges are on the front line of assessing the practicality and &quot;rightness&quot; of the law versus the situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 7650984, member: 8835"] It's my guess that most people don't know the rules, and won't follow any rule that conflicts with their personal rules. Since most people follow some variation of the golden rule, they don't so much follow the laws of the land, so much as coincidentally don't collide with them. Folks drive on the correct side of the road because that's how you get along with other people (golden rule basis), not because the government has a law on the books that says so. Folks cross the solid white line onto the wide paved shoulder to make a right turn because it's convenient, and they think they are making room for through traffic coming up behind them, even though it is illegal to cross the solid white line onto the shoulder, barring an emergency (the shoulder is not a legal turning lane). Most folks don't kill people or steal because it's wrong to do so, not because there's a law that says it is a crime. I read an article a long time ago about Jury Nullification. One of the points the article made was that the hidden objective of a jury in a trial was also to weigh the law and it's rightness or applicability to the situation, not just whether the defendant had broken the law or not. Apparently, that idea is buried somewhere in the Constitution. According to the article, judges and lawyers aren't too keen on this element of trial law and don't spend a lot of time talking about it. The point of the article was for the defendant to bring this point up, so as to nullify the jury with regards to the prosecutor's objective to get a guilty verdict on the technical merit, rather than the "rightness" of the act. What this article reminded me of, is the issue we hear in politics of judges "legislating from the bench". I never did any research on the legal points the article made, but if it was correct, than it seems to me that the very point of a trial is to correct for bad laws by "legislating from the bench" because juries and judges are on the front line of assessing the practicality and "rightness" of the law versus the situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification