5 ms·

>"he was threatened with spending a life in jail and being bankrupted, without the option to get off without pleading guilty." ...I don't quite understand this

by objclxt 14y ago

>"he was threatened with spending a life in jail and being bankrupted, without the option to get off without pleading guilty." ...I don't quite understand this. Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

potatolicious 14y ago
Except he was guilty, and didn't stand a chance in an actual trial. This part's not even controversial - Aaron was evidently fighting laws that he believed were unjust. The fact that he violated them is not in question. And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Yes they can.[1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- Illychnosis 14y ago
  > A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Jury nullification is to all intents and purposes mostly a theoretical thing nowadays.
    - dialtone 14y ago
      According to Clay Conrad, author of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctrine/dp/0890897026 http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctr... And according to an article that he wrote in 2003[1]: Jury nullification occurs in 3-4% of all criminal trials. Jurors cannot be ordered to convict or punished for acquitting. A jury verdict of Not Guilty is final. [1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-as-a-juror/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...
  - arrrg 14y ago
    That’s not what jury nullification is for – not in the sense you are talking about it. The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature. Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility. I also think it’s illusory to believe that jury nullification is in any kind of way a meaningful escape. It’s a fluke, nothing more.
    - dialtone 14y ago
      You are wrong and it is intentionally designed in the system. Why then have the verdict of a jury be final, with impossibility of re-trial, even in the eyes of Congress, if not to defend the Constitutional Right of Jury nullification? From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply: Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained: The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpation, without an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. Or, as Patrick Henry put it: Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort ” that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me. [1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-as-a-juror/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...
      - rprasad 14y ago
        As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system. Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury. In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily convict. Thus, the primary method of expressing displeasure in a law...is to express displeasure in a law (by calling your local legislator).
- dialtone 14y ago
  As a matter of fact a jury can do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification although of course this is a controversial topic.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    I actually find it implausible that a jury would have been savvy enough to know, even after courtroom-education by the defense, that nullification was an ideal option.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      The status quo would seem to agree with you, and would like to keep it that way: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/U_S__Judge_tosses_jury_nullification_case/ http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_...
- joshstrange 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification > Jury nullification occurs when juries acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law. I do not agree with kristenlee but I did want to bring up at a jury can let someone walk who is technically guilty. Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to post the same as 2 other people I read the article then came back to read the comments and I didn't see the other comments as I hadn't refreshed the page
- glesica 14y ago
  Not necessarily, and it is controversial. I read the indictment and have followed the case and, though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that most of the charges were dubious, at best. They seem to have over-charged him, perhaps to extract a plea deal. In other words, the prosecutors may not have even expected to be able to convict him on all counts. You cited nothing, and your claims are impossible to back with reasonable facts. I suspect you haven't even read about the case (though I see in some of your other comments that you claim to be familiar with the facts). You want us to be "better", and I agree that anger after the fact is less ideal than anger beforehand. But making ridiculous statements about guilt or innocence is just as bad as condemning the prosecutors for murder.
masklinn 14y ago
> Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers. 1. That would have bankrupted him anyway. 2. He was guilty, as far as the law book is concerned.
- tankenmate 14y ago
  I'm not sure but weren't all the charges he was accused of require mens rea?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Maybe a Massachusetts jury would be better, but I would generally expect the alleged fact that Aaron hid his face from a camera with a bike helmet (sorry, can't remember where I read this) to be enough to convince most juries of ill intent, given that most people seem to equate "sneaky" with "wrong."
fatbird 14y ago
One of the issues that's been topical around here lately is that the cost of being found not guilty by a jury, is itself ruinous, if not totally out of reach of most people. This is part of the fed's strategy in massively overcharging people: It pressures them to accept a plea deal, which is how the vast majority of cases are resolved, because they can't possibly afford to stick it out long enough to be found not guilty.

by objclxt 14y ago

potatolicious 14y ago

Except he was guilty, and didn't stand a chance in an actual trial. This part's not even controversial - Aaron was evidently fighting laws that he believed were unjust. The fact that he violated them is not in question. And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.

mindcrime 14y ago
A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Yes they can.[1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Illychnosis 14y ago
> A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Jury nullification is to all intents and purposes mostly a theoretical thing nowadays.
  - dialtone 14y ago
    According to Clay Conrad, author of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctrine/dp/0890897026 http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctr... And according to an article that he wrote in 2003[1]: Jury nullification occurs in 3-4% of all criminal trials. Jurors cannot be ordered to convict or punished for acquitting. A jury verdict of Not Guilty is final. [1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-as-a-juror/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...
- arrrg 14y ago
  That’s not what jury nullification is for – not in the sense you are talking about it. The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature. Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility. I also think it’s illusory to believe that jury nullification is in any kind of way a meaningful escape. It’s a fluke, nothing more.
  - dialtone 14y ago
    You are wrong and it is intentionally designed in the system. Why then have the verdict of a jury be final, with impossibility of re-trial, even in the eyes of Congress, if not to defend the Constitutional Right of Jury nullification? From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply: Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained: The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpation, without an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. Or, as Patrick Henry put it: Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort ” that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me. [1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-as-a-juror/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...
    - rprasad 14y ago
      As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system. Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury. In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily convict. Thus, the primary method of expressing displeasure in a law...is to express displeasure in a law (by calling your local legislator).
dialtone 14y ago
As a matter of fact a jury can do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification although of course this is a controversial topic.
- saraid216 14y ago
  I actually find it implausible that a jury would have been savvy enough to know, even after courtroom-education by the defense, that nullification was an ideal option.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The status quo would seem to agree with you, and would like to keep it that way: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/U_S__Judge_tosses_jury_nullification_case/ http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_...
joshstrange 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification > Jury nullification occurs when juries acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law. I do not agree with kristenlee but I did want to bring up at a jury can let someone walk who is technically guilty. Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to post the same as 2 other people I read the article then came back to read the comments and I didn't see the other comments as I hadn't refreshed the page
glesica 14y ago
Not necessarily, and it is controversial. I read the indictment and have followed the case and, though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that most of the charges were dubious, at best. They seem to have over-charged him, perhaps to extract a plea deal. In other words, the prosecutors may not have even expected to be able to convict him on all counts. You cited nothing, and your claims are impossible to back with reasonable facts. I suspect you haven't even read about the case (though I see in some of your other comments that you claim to be familiar with the facts). You want us to be "better", and I agree that anger after the fact is less ideal than anger beforehand. But making ridiculous statements about guilt or innocence is just as bad as condemning the prosecutors for murder.

masklinn 14y ago

> Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers. 1. That would have bankrupted him anyway. 2. He was guilty, as far as the law book is concerned.

tankenmate 14y ago
I'm not sure but weren't all the charges he was accused of require mens rea?
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Maybe a Massachusetts jury would be better, but I would generally expect the alleged fact that Aaron hid his face from a camera with a bike helmet (sorry, can't remember where I read this) to be enough to convince most juries of ill intent, given that most people seem to equate "sneaky" with "wrong."

fatbird 14y ago

One of the issues that's been topical around here lately is that the cost of being found not guilty by a jury, is itself ruinous, if not totally out of reach of most people. This is part of the fed's strategy in massively overcharging people: It pressures them to accept a plea deal, which is how the vast majority of cases are resolved, because they can't possibly afford to stick it out long enough to be found not guilty.