Posted by Paul Hyett on 11/05/06 20:51

In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :

>>> 1 juror (cf. nullification).
>>
>>Nonsense. The purpose of law is to ensure predictability in social and
>>commercial interactions, not to impose the will of a dictator on others.
>>So-called jury nullification is not legal
>
>You are full of it. A juror can vote his conscience if he wants to. It
>is against the law to hold a juror accountable for his decision.
>
>You are one of the biggest statists I have seen in a long time.

That's right, you haven't visited ukpm for a while... :)
>
>>and, in any event, a judge can
>>always enter judgment non obstante verdicto ("not withstanding the
>>verdict").
>
>Only in certain states, the fascist ones.

Even Britain isn't *that* bad!
>
>>> That is not true. In the first place defendants who violate the law
>>> can be exonerated by 1 juror.
>
>>And that is not true.
>
>You never heard of a hung jury?
>
>As a statist you hold that a defendant is guilty until a unanimous
>jury pronounced him innocent. That is clearly wrong.

He clearly doesn't understand concepts like 'innocent until proven
guilty' & 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

[Back to original message]