|
|
Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/07/06 16:10
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:30:28 GMT, jayembee
<jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote:
>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.
That is correct. A hung jury cannot convict a defendant. It takes a
unanimous jury to convict.
>And that if the charge is copyright violation, then the
>lack of a guilty verdict renders the law non-binding.
Only for that specific case.
>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 is correct for all other possible cases.
>That the process and the result is the same regardless of whether the
>crime is copyright violation or murder.
You cannot go from a particular trial to a generalization like that.
I said the law is not binding under the particular circumstances in
which a jury does not return a conviction.
Of course the state can re-try the case and if it succeeds in getting
a conviction, then the previous trial is not meaningful.
--
"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|