Joe Kelley
Administrator
|
http://www.fija.org/forums/viewforum.php?id=2
Speaking honestly is a liability.
Above is the forum for an association of people who publish a request for comments on the subject of trial by jury.
One of my last post before being banned:
“When I have more time to respond, I will try to explain why hung juries -- hung either way -- can be a sign of a healthy society and a healthy justice system. Meanwhile, I would encourage all of you to consider why this might be so, and to post your thinking here.”
Sincerely,
Iloilo M. Jones
Please clarify what is meant by a “Hung Jury”.
Example:
A “Hung Jury” is a jury that cannot judge and therefore another jury must be selected to judge.
If that is the definition, then, I fail to see any justice.
I can re-read Spooner’s works but before doing so I’m testing my own understanding of the concept of Trial by Jury.
Any reasonable human being within the State can try any law once authorized to do so while on a jury. If any juror acquits another human being, then, the law is judged; period.
If it is a requirement to have consensus, agreement, and union is judgment, then, juries will be instruments of the State and for the State rather than an individual power defending liberty against fraud and aggressive violence.
The Check, as I understand it, against liberating criminal behavior, if that is the argument for “Hung Juries”, is potential trials of individual jurors who wrongfully acquit.
It makes no sense to me to authorize a juror to judge and then, at the same time, demand conformity in judgment unless there is a need to limit the power to judge – to place a check on the power to judge – more precisely: to place a check on the power to unleash aggressive violence.
The idea behind additional jurors, rather than having one individual judge, is to scientifically average, or poll, the general human understanding of common law (or Gods law for the religious) among the entire human race or, at least, those who have voluntarily agreed to participate in trials by jury. 12 is an expedient representative number of the people and a reasonably calculated representation of the common understanding of common law or natural law for those who are not inclined toward religion.
12 is not 11 or 2
12 is not 13 or 6 billion.
One person can acquit.
12 must agree to unleash the power to harm.
One person can acquit.
If one person can unleash the power to aggressively harm, then, how is that different from despotism?
The idea is to limit the power to harm in such a manner that decreases the likelihood of harming innocent people. The idea is to reduce the chance of harming innocent people to a minimum.
If 12 people must agree to acquit, then, the individual no longer has the power to acquit.
The power to harm is in the hands of a mob. The size of the mob doesn’t matter. The check on the mob is individual responsibility.
“Hung Juries” are patently despotic.
I’m interested, very much so, in hearing how giving the mob the power to harm with out a check by individual responsibility is somehow justified.
The individual judge, king, criminal, torturer, assassin, fraud, con man, rapist, whatever, certainly has the individual power to harm all by him or herself including the power to organize help in harming. Each individual has the power to join an organized crime mob.
If the individual is guilty of letting the criminal go free, then, the check on that behavior is the liability of being tried for that crime. The individual who is guilty of letting the guilty continue to commit crimes with impunity is guilty of letting a criminal go free. That criminal will be tried with his own conscience and inevitably that criminal, the one who let the criminal go free, will be tried by all the peers who know the severity of the crime he or she committed.
If anyone is ever facing the wrath of the angry mob, then, that person, in that set of shoes, will hope that, at least one person alive, on the planet, has the power to acquit
I see no way to justify this “Hung Jury” fraud.
Perhaps I should get my head out of my ass?
Please educate me.
I re-read my current reasoning and I still realize something important.
The power to acquit can unleash a criminal who could commit more crimes. Is that the reason why some people advocate limiting that power? Are people afraid that too many criminals will commit crimes with impunity?
Who, then, is guilty for the criminal’s acts - the criminal or the person who did not find the criminal guilty?
I think that this is the root of the problem. Who is responsible for aggressive violence?
Do the proponents of “Hung Juries”, whoever they are in word and deed, suggest that a person should be able to order aggressive violence with impunity? Is that the argument? Convict at will?
Can I order the death of a man I find guilty of something, by law, and get away with ordering that death so long as I have 11 other people agreeing with me; even if it turns out that the man, woman, or even the child is guiltless? What happens if there is no doubt of innocence one day after the convicted person’s death? Will no fingers point to the jurors? Will no one hold the jurors accountable for murder? Is the argument for “Hung Juries” such that I am somehow going to be free from guilt if I let a criminal continue to commit crimes?
Can you see this clearly? One person guilty of setting a criminal free will be judged by his peers, out of court, in his life, in his society, for as long as the criminal continues to commit crimes. What could that person, that false liberator, be guilty of doing wrong? He will suffer guilt and there can be no doubt if he has a conscience. However; he or she will not be guilty of aggressive violence.
On the other hand, please see this clearly, one person guilty of justifying the aggressive use of force is a far greater, willful, first degree criminal act, and therefore an act that cannot be shouldered, reasonably, by one person. It is a power that cannot be justified by one person. What is the cost of error? What is the potential cost of unchecked power to harm?
If a decision is made to acquit, then, that decision is, in fact, an individual responsibility. What is the cost of error? Is it: too many criminals going free and too many jurors spending time and energy on jury duty while no one is paying for the costs of crime? Are we really that ignorant? If crime cost too much, then, jurors will point fingers at jurors who refuse to hold criminals accountable. Take them to court. If jurors cannot be held accountable by written law then certainly those ‘liberal’ jurors will be stoned to death in the streets before the criminals spend every ounce of wealth and before we are all working for crime.
If a decision is made to harm, then, that decision cannot be anything but an individual responsibility. What is the cost of error? Certainly, one would think, the people would begin to hang jurors from trees before everyone is serving time in prison. Individuals can be trusted with the power to acquit. What is the problem?
I see no reasonable argument for watering down, or sharing responsibility, for anyone justifying the aggressive use of violence.
Can you see this?
If one person in a jury acquits, then, that one person has the power to end all justification of the aggressive use of force. If that one person is wrong, then, that one person and only the jurors who agree with him, or her, are guilty of liberating a potential criminal.
On the other hand; if all the jurors unanimously, coincidently, free from peer pressure, and without any reasonable doubt, all, unleash the power to aggressively harm someone, then, all 12 juror are responsible, each one is, for whatever is done to the convicted criminal.
From another angle:
If one juror is more than happy to sentence anyone to death and that person happens to be on a jury, then, that person, all on his own, can nullify the power of 11 other jurors if “Hung Juries” are allowed by the people and supposedly for the people’s benefit. What is the cost of trying an obviously innocent person over and over and over again until the juries cannot afford to keep trying the innocent person over and over again simply because of a few people who insist upon punishing innocent people?
What is behind this “Hung Jury” crusade? Is there a fear, such, that guilty people will go free or is it merely a desire to punish with impunity?
I’m anxious to hear the justification for giving one person the power to injure with impunity. I may have the concept all wrong. Apparently crime does pay now as things are now as individuals have no power now; not by law. Giving up the power to acquit, it seems to me, is a very big mistake.
Here is what the Forum advertizes:
Your place on the web for discussion on the authority of the jury.
Just in case the above link does not last long this is the message I get for asking honest questions without reservations concerning the authority of any jury including moderators on a forum:
You are banned from this forum. The administrator or moderator that banned you left the following message: Although this may be the first ban you ever experience, it may not be the last unless you act a little better.Please direct any inquiries to the forum administrator at aji@fija.org.
Children in glass houses.
I've been banned from these forums too:
http://www.freedomtofascism.com./cms/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=16
http://www.austrianforum.com/index.php?showtopic=364
Note: The last forum linked above is one of my remaining posts and it happens to be the most viewed post on that page. I can no longer log onto that site.
This forum has one of my posts which is also the most viewed on that page. My post was moved from the main discussion to the OFF-TOPIC area:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=11095.0
Now: The JURY is not 'STILL OUT' on my exclusion from the FIJA (FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION) I am BANNED from that forum.
The JURY is not "STILL OUT" on my exclusion for the Austrian Economics forum; I am BANNED from that forum.
The JURY is still "OUT" on my exclusion from the FREEDOM TO FACISM site. That site, and that organization, is active and possibly still gaining momentum in the effort to FULLY INFORM people concerning matters of JUSTICE. I am only banned from that forum because that forum is down for maintenance.
I've reported greater detail on the Freedom to Fachism topic here:
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=72&forum_id=6
Now: I'm sending a letter to the FIJA e-mail link posted on the web page that informs me that I have been banned from the FIJA forum. That letter will be this:
To whom it may concern:
Please understand that you have censured me. You have acted as judge, jury, and executioner over me concerning one of the most valuable human freedoms.
I hope that you can sleep well with your convoluted and contradictory principles. I wish this to be true. I am however lacking the necessary communications that could confirm this possibility, in fact, the information so far communicated by your organization to me confirms the opposite.
I've published my own information on our exchange here:
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=148&forum_id=4 Sincerely, Joe Kelley
Sent here:
aji@fija.org
10:27 AM PDT Sunday August 20 2006
If the FIJA wish to promote justice, then, they can post all the exchanges that led to my bannishment. I lost my last post to that site. It was, at least, honest.
Last edited on Sun Aug 20th, 2006 01:35 pm by Joe Kelley
|
