The Journals of Justus Agenstum: A Journey Thru The Judicial System #2
In the first segment of this serialized submission, we discussed the initial stages of being charged with a criminal offense, and the early procedures employed by members of the judicial system in the form of plea bargains. In this segment we are going to discuss the favorable aspects of electing to take your case to jury trial. As linked to in the previous segment, an astounding 90%+ of criminal cases NEVER see a date with a jury trial. Let that sink in for a minute; more than 90% of all cases involving a criminal charge are plea bargained directly into convictions for lesser crimes. This means that the suspect was manipulated into accepting a conviction to a lesser crime without ever having their case heard by a jury of their peers.
So, why would an individual want to decline a plea bargain and elect to take the case to trial? Well, for starters, a jury trial offers a 50-50 chance of exonerating the suspect entirely, as opposed to accepting a stacked deck that offers nothing more than a guaranteed, 100% chance of being convicted of something...anything. Therefore, by simply electing to go to trial the suspect has immediately reduced their chances of a conviction, statistically speaking of course. While there is plenty of information online that show high conviction rates for jury trials, what those numbers fail to take into account is the infrequency at which cases actually go to trial.
Another reason to consider taking your case to jury trial is because the US Constitution actually guarantees each and every citizen the right to just such a platform to determine justice fairly, by public trial, with impartiality, quickly, with right to legal counsel and the ability to examine both adverse and favorable witnesses. By engaging these rights to the fullest extent of the law, the suspect rejects judicial manipulation in favor of peer reviewed results, and fosters the format by which our founding fathers determined fairness and equality for all. In contrast, by accepting a plea bargain, the suspect fosters the format favored by the federal and state government to corruptly compile statistics that are then used to strip away more rights from individual citizens.
One of the most important factors of a jury trial, which judges and lawyers will not discuss in an open court room, is the ability of a jury to nullify laws. Go ahead, take a moment and let that sentence digest. Each and every jury, formed within the US judicial system, has the ability to nullify any and all laws it determines to be morally, and/or constitutionally objectionable. This is known as jury nullification, and when properly employed, it can work in favor of the suspect.
That being said, make no mistake about it, "jury nullification" is a taboo subject in, as well as around, court rooms all across America. Judges and prosecuting attorneys absolutely despise anyone who attempts in any way, shape, or form to educate the masses about their Constitutionally protected rights to nullify laws while sitting on a jury. The mere mention of "jury nullification" in a court room while jury selection is underway, will get the individual uttering those words immediately removed from the pool, and may very well result in Contempt of Court charges being brought against the individual.
In short, jury nullification occurs when the sitting jury agrees to dismiss charges against a suspect when they feel the charges are unjustified for any number of reasons. This, in essence, means that even though laws may be "on the books," and the suspect is guilty of breaking them, the jury feels that extenuating circumstances warrant the result of "not guilty," or the jury agrees that the laws broken are themselves morally, and/or Constitutionally, unjust. In a perfect world jury nullification would be used to nullify cases involving criminal charges against people guilty of committing "victim-less" crimes.
Can jury nullification be used to return unfair results? Of course it can. Like everything else that works for the benefit of the flock, it can be used to upset the apple cart, so to speak. In fact, history is ripe with stories that depict abhorrent applications of jury nullification. All white juries almost always found abusive slave owners "not guilty" of committing crimes against slaves, as slaves were seen as secondary citizens. In modern times, the process by which juries are selected almost always guarantees a vast mixture of peers from the local community, thereby reducing the ability for a jury to be selected for the sole purpose of engaging in jury nullification proceedings.
Stay tuned for The Journals of Justus Agenstum: A Journey Thru The Judicial System #3, where we discuss who should take full advantage of jury trials in hopes of experiencing jury nullification results.
The Journals of Justus Agenstum: A Journey Thru The Judicial System #1 can be read here.
@rossulbricht would like this article, I am sure. <3
The first part is available here, and the third installment has just been posted.
"All white juries almost always found abusive slave owners "not guilty" of committing crimes against slaves, as slaves were seen as secondary citizens."
No, slaves were not seen as secondary citizens. Slaves were not seen as citizens at all, but rather as property.
What are two or three examples of cases in which all-white juries found slave owners not guilty of crimes against slaves? Under which specific laws were they prosecuted?
I am highly skeptical of this claim because there were very few protections for slaves, being that they were seen as property. A slave had virtually no power to protest against beating, rape, and other abuses.
@kirsten if you learned to read, the point being made in that segment of the article was that "jury nullification," during slavery was used to find slave owners "NOT GUILTY." By finding slave owners not guilty of crimes against slaves, there were no specific laws for prosecuting the slave owners. This article has absolutely nothing to do with protections for slaves. Perhaps a remedial reading course is in order.
"All white juries almost always found abusive slave owners "not guilty" of committing crimes against slaves, as slaves were seen as secondary citizens."
I quoted the first sentence of my previous comment and this comment directly from the article above as it appeared when I read it. I just checked and that false statement IS STILL IN THE ARTICLE.
This is not a problem with my reading comprehension. This is a problem with author making a false statement about citizenship, and about making a highly dubious statement about jury nullification that is becoming even more dubious with your comment.
If there were no specific laws for prosecuting slave owners for crimes against slaves, then it is clearly false to blame all-white juries for not convicting them for crimes against slaves. If there was no law under which they could be charged, then there was no way to bring them to trial before a jury. If there was no trial by jury, then no jury could have done what the author claims they "almost always" did.
What, pray tell makes this a false statement? Jury nullification was used by all white juries to furnish a result of "not guilty" for white slave owners who abused their slaves...maybe it isn't your reading comprehension that's the problem...perhaps it is the stick you obviously have firmly embedded in the darkest regions of your crappy ideas.
There is a very good reason you have a 25 by your name and I have a 41...maybe trolling and being an anal wart just isn't working out in your best interest. If you cannot understand the point the article is making, then move on...it is not my responsibility, or the Steemit community's responsibility, to educate you on how to properly consume content.
Please, do me a favor, and DON'T FOLLOW ME...I abhor people who have nothing better to do with their lives than troll the internet looking to be belligerent idiots. The fact remains, jury nullification was used, and has been used, to prevent certain people from receiving the punishment they would have under a fair and impartial system, during the days of slavery, based solely on the color of their skin...instead of crying about not understanding, try looking up Fugitive Slave Laws.
The clearly false part of the statement was calling slaves second class citizens. They were not any class of citizens. They were PROPERTY. They were no more a citizen than a car or a donkey or a house would be.
The part you have quoted here, I initially called highly dubious and requested examples which you claim you cannot give because "there were no specific laws for prosecuting the slave owners". If there were no specific laws under which slave owners could be prosecuted for abusing slaves, then how could they be tried before the juries you claim refused to convict them? That makes no sense, and by that analysis, this part of the statement is also almost certainly false.
I think you are confusing the Fugitive Slave Laws with the Jim Crow era, which followed the Civil War. There actually are examples of all-white juries during the Jim Crow era who failed to convict white defendants on trial for lynching black citizens. And yes, they were citizens in the JIm Crow era, but not during slavery.
Rather than insulting someone who has researched and written on both of the topics when you are clearly in the wrong, I strongly suggest getting your facts straight and correcting your article.
@kirsten...as I said...do me a favor and do NOT follow me...I detest petty little trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than nitpick semantics. And as I also stated, there is a reason you have a 25 next to your name and I have a 41 next to mine...apparently more people agree with my point of view than yours, otherwise you would be gaining STEEM rather than losing face.
Maybe you would be better at something more your speed...might I suggest Pokemon GO!