|
|
Posted by jayembee on 11/07/06 05:30
Anthony Marsh <anthony_marsh@comcast.net> wrote:
> jayembee wrote:
>> spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>>
>>> jayembee <jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Therefore the law you claim is binding is not really binding -
>>>> Horseshit. If you really believe that, then *no* law is binding.
>>> That does not follow from what I have stated.
>>
>> Sure it does. You set up a hypothetical case where you'd be given
>> a trial for violating copyright, and then arguing that a single
>> juror voting "Not Guilty" exonerates you, and that this means
>> that the law against copyright violation is not binding.
>>
>> How does that differ from any other crime? The criminal trial jury
>> "exonerated" OJ Simpson on the charge of murder. Does that mean
>> that the law against murder is not binding?
>
> But in the OJ Simpson case and almost every other case it take a
> unanimous finding of the jurors, not just one juror.
Bob's original point was that if eleven jurors think he's guilty,
and one obstinate juror votes "not guilty", there's no verdict of
guilt. And that if the charge is copyright violation, then the
lack of a guilty verdict renders the law non-binding.
But that's not really the point. The real point is that whether a
jury renders a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty doesn't affect
whether the law being violated is binding or not binding. That
the process and the result is the same regardless of whether the
crime is copyright violation or murder.
-- jayembee
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|