6 ms·

And yet they still sent him to die in prison

MarkMarine 4y ago
“While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” I think to hear him tell it, he was already in prison.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  This is absolutely the meaninh of these epic lines.
simfree 4y ago
They could have done a jury nullification.
- pooper 4y ago
  It isn't that easy. The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay because you didn't "respect my authority" (read in the voice of the petulant child, Eric Cartman from the cartoon show South Park). In fact, I feel like I am doing something illegal just by typing this. We cannot win in a court of law. They will simply replace us if we show them any brain activity. You must reach a unanimous not guilty verdict, not because of jury nullification but because you genuinely believe the defendant is not guilty. > For the most part, the answer is no. You should NOT discuss jury nullification with your fellow jurors. > It is well-established that it is perfectly legal for a juror to vote not guilty for any reason they believe is just. However, courts have also decided that they can remove jurors for considering their option to conscientiously acquit. > This applies anytime until the verdict is officially rendered. Even as late as deliberations, if a disgruntled fellow juror decides to tattle on you to the judge, you could be replaced with an alternate juror. We recommend not openly discussing jury nullification during deliberations. > https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/should-i-discuss-jury-nullification-with-my-fellow-jurors.html https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullific... All normal disclaimer applies. I am not a lawyer. I anal. Yada yada.
  - lossolo 4y ago
    > The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay because you didn't "respect my authority" Generalizations like that are not helpful, I am not a lawyer and I won in court with judge, he reversed his own ruling because I've proved he was wrong based on Supreme Court rulings.
    - pooper 4y ago
      If you find me any precedent showing that I can openly discuss jury nullification without the judge throwing the book at me, I will be very indebted to you. Until then, the point stands. They do not take kindly any effort to disrespect them. Remember, a court of law has authority because we as a society gives them this authority. Since we don't live by divine rights of kings, they do not have any claim to authority other than through us, the people. This is the very foundation of our democracy. I agree that usually this is inflammatory language but in this specific case, you must walk into court assuming they are out to get you if you discuss jury nullification. Once again, this is not legal advice. I anal.
      - labster 4y ago
        > I anal. Yes you are, pooper, yes you are. Jury nullification is not some divine right, it’s an unintended consequence of jury secrecy. It’s like going into a job interview at Twitter, and just talking about how everything is exploited by bots, and then you just complain about how you aren’t allowed free speech on the platform. Who would hire you? Wait, bad example.
      - 3a2d29 4y ago
        Not being able to talk about jury nullification does not mean all judges are crooks. The reason people try to discourage “jury nullification” is because if a law is unjust, it should be removed, not be in place for certain juries to give _some_ people passes. The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something.
- MarkMarine 4y ago
  Not at the Supreme Court.
shadowgovt 4y ago
He didn't die in prison.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  He didn’t die in prison but did die of problems he developed in prison.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Debs was 64 when sentenced to 10 years in prison. He likely would have died there if Harding had not commuted his sentence to time served. As noted, Debs eventually passed from health problems developed while imprisoned.
- MarkMarine 4y ago
  The “liberal” Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, upheld the verdict, on the ground that Debs’ speech was intended to obstruct military recruiting. The “liberal” Woodrow Wilson, with the war over, and Debs still in prison, 65, and in poor health, turned down his Attorney General’s recommendation that Debs be released. He was in prison for 32 months, and then in 1921, the Republican Warren Harding ordered him freed on Christmas Day.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Therefore, he didn't die in prison.
    - MarkMarine 4y ago
  - not2b 4y ago
    Wilson, liberal? Besides nearly eradicating the 1st Amendment, he was a promoter of the KKK and did his best to reverse any gains Black Americans had made that hadn't already been erased.

“While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” I think to hear him tell it, he was already in prison.

nopenopenopeno 4y ago
This is absolutely the meaninh of these epic lines.

simfree 4y ago

They could have done a jury nullification.

pooper 4y ago
It isn't that easy. The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay because you didn't "respect my authority" (read in the voice of the petulant child, Eric Cartman from the cartoon show South Park). In fact, I feel like I am doing something illegal just by typing this. We cannot win in a court of law. They will simply replace us if we show them any brain activity. You must reach a unanimous not guilty verdict, not because of jury nullification but because you genuinely believe the defendant is not guilty. > For the most part, the answer is no. You should NOT discuss jury nullification with your fellow jurors. > It is well-established that it is perfectly legal for a juror to vote not guilty for any reason they believe is just. However, courts have also decided that they can remove jurors for considering their option to conscientiously acquit. > This applies anytime until the verdict is officially rendered. Even as late as deliberations, if a disgruntled fellow juror decides to tattle on you to the judge, you could be replaced with an alternate juror. We recommend not openly discussing jury nullification during deliberations. > https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/should-i-discuss-jury-nullification-with-my-fellow-jurors.html https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullific... All normal disclaimer applies. I am not a lawyer. I anal. Yada yada.
- lossolo 4y ago
  > The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay because you didn't "respect my authority" Generalizations like that are not helpful, I am not a lawyer and I won in court with judge, he reversed his own ruling because I've proved he was wrong based on Supreme Court rulings.
  - pooper 4y ago
    If you find me any precedent showing that I can openly discuss jury nullification without the judge throwing the book at me, I will be very indebted to you. Until then, the point stands. They do not take kindly any effort to disrespect them. Remember, a court of law has authority because we as a society gives them this authority. Since we don't live by divine rights of kings, they do not have any claim to authority other than through us, the people. This is the very foundation of our democracy. I agree that usually this is inflammatory language but in this specific case, you must walk into court assuming they are out to get you if you discuss jury nullification. Once again, this is not legal advice. I anal.
    - labster 4y ago
      > I anal. Yes you are, pooper, yes you are. Jury nullification is not some divine right, it’s an unintended consequence of jury secrecy. It’s like going into a job interview at Twitter, and just talking about how everything is exploited by bots, and then you just complain about how you aren’t allowed free speech on the platform. Who would hire you? Wait, bad example.
    - 3a2d29 4y ago
      Not being able to talk about jury nullification does not mean all judges are crooks. The reason people try to discourage “jury nullification” is because if a law is unjust, it should be removed, not be in place for certain juries to give _some_ people passes. The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something.
MarkMarine 4y ago
Not at the Supreme Court.

shadowgovt 4y ago

He didn't die in prison.

kasey_junk 4y ago
He didn’t die in prison but did die of problems he developed in prison.
alistairSH 4y ago
Debs was 64 when sentenced to 10 years in prison. He likely would have died there if Harding had not commuted his sentence to time served. As noted, Debs eventually passed from health problems developed while imprisoned.
MarkMarine 4y ago
The “liberal” Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, upheld the verdict, on the ground that Debs’ speech was intended to obstruct military recruiting. The “liberal” Woodrow Wilson, with the war over, and Debs still in prison, 65, and in poor health, turned down his Attorney General’s recommendation that Debs be released. He was in prison for 32 months, and then in 1921, the Republican Warren Harding ordered him freed on Christmas Day.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Therefore, he didn't die in prison.
  - MarkMarine 4y ago
- not2b 4y ago
  Wilson, liberal? Besides nearly eradicating the 1st Amendment, he was a promoter of the KKK and did his best to reverse any gains Black Americans had made that hadn't already been erased.