Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/05/06 19:05

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:19:39 GMT, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:

>If cases under a certain law keep getting nullified, it
>sends a message that the law in question is unpopular/unenforceable.

It does far more than that. It sets precendents in "case law". The
second person to become a defendant can use that case to provide a
defense.

>> and, in any event, a judge can
>>always enter judgment non obstante verdicto ("not withstanding the
>>verdict").

>Since when? Why even bother having juries if that was the case?

That British nanny who was tried for that little kid's death was
exonerated by the judge when the jury returned a murder conviction.


--

"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

[Back to original message]