4 ms·

You should replace technically with expressly. As it is technically given to American citizens, just not expressly told to them that they have this inherent rig

You should replace technically with expressly. As it is technically given to American citizens, just not expressly told to them that they have this inherent right.

monochromatic 14y ago
It's really not a legal right that they have. They have the ability, or the power. But in order to exercise that power, they have to disregard the oath that they swear as jurors.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  Right, hence the reason they do technically have that right, but don't expressly have that right.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    Not really... it's not a right that they have. They have the ability to do it, but it's not a right that was ever granted to them, and they're breaking their oath when they do it. I have the ability to sneak into my neighbor's house and steal his things. It's implicitly built into the system where I live next door to him, and he's not always home. But I sure don't have the right to do that.
    - jeremyarussell 14y ago
      I'm not sure if your argument is valid. The two seem very different from each other. One is the chance to save someone from prosecution, the other is a chance to take something from another. I almost want to call this a Straw Man argument, you are using an argument that is unrelated but you draw up similarities to make it seem that my argument is wrong. I might be wrong too though.
      - matthewowen 14y ago
        Well, it might be that the guy you save from prosecution is the same one that just broke into their next door neighbour's house. And hey, the neighbour might have thought it was his right, and you might agree. But that isn't the point. The actual point is that rights and laws are supposed to be generated by consensus. Doing something just because you're able to isn't generating by consensus - it's happening because a sufficient number of jurors in a case decided they disagreed with something.
      - monochromatic 14y ago
        Yeah, it's kind of a bad example because it's too extreme. But I think the point still holds, and I wasn't able to come up with a better example of something I have the power, but not the right, to do.
    - mcherm 14y ago
      It's become a matter of semantics. All of us in the conversation understand what is meant: the jurors must disregard the Judge's instructions, but they are fully capable of doing so. Whether we call that "technically" or "expressly" is just a matter of word choice... personally, I'm happy with either term.

You should replace technically with expressly. As it is technically given to American citizens, just not expressly told to them that they have this inherent right.

monochromatic 14y ago

It's really not a legal right that they have. They have the ability, or the power. But in order to exercise that power, they have to disregard the oath that they swear as jurors.

jeremyarussell 14y ago
Right, hence the reason they do technically have that right, but don't expressly have that right.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Not really... it's not a right that they have. They have the ability to do it, but it's not a right that was ever granted to them, and they're breaking their oath when they do it. I have the ability to sneak into my neighbor's house and steal his things. It's implicitly built into the system where I live next door to him, and he's not always home. But I sure don't have the right to do that.
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    I'm not sure if your argument is valid. The two seem very different from each other. One is the chance to save someone from prosecution, the other is a chance to take something from another. I almost want to call this a Straw Man argument, you are using an argument that is unrelated but you draw up similarities to make it seem that my argument is wrong. I might be wrong too though.
    - matthewowen 14y ago
      Well, it might be that the guy you save from prosecution is the same one that just broke into their next door neighbour's house. And hey, the neighbour might have thought it was his right, and you might agree. But that isn't the point. The actual point is that rights and laws are supposed to be generated by consensus. Doing something just because you're able to isn't generating by consensus - it's happening because a sufficient number of jurors in a case decided they disagreed with something.
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      Yeah, it's kind of a bad example because it's too extreme. But I think the point still holds, and I wasn't able to come up with a better example of something I have the power, but not the right, to do.
  - mcherm 14y ago
    It's become a matter of semantics. All of us in the conversation understand what is meant: the jurors must disregard the Judge's instructions, but they are fully capable of doing so. Whether we call that "technically" or "expressly" is just a matter of word choice... personally, I'm happy with either term.