Seems to me a lot of new laws are harsh, with ridiculous mandatoring sentencing, and sometimes even in conflict with our Constitution. If you sit on a jury and they want to throw some 18 year old in prison for 20 mandatory years because he slept with his 16 year old girlfriend, is it not your duty to refute the law and hand in an innocent verdict? Perhaps admonishing the D.A. as the same time?
2007-07-23 03:57:16 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This is what happens when the religious right controls the republican party and the republicans control the Supreme court with the idiotic decisions made by the other Bush
Laws that have NO tolerance are just another way that Conservatives compare to the Taliban
2007-07-23 04:10:30 · answer #1 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is the judges job to determine questions of law and the jury's job to determine innocent or guilt based on the judges instructions on the law and the facts presented. Most people sitting on the jury have no education when it comes to interpreting the law so they should not be responsible for deciding if it is right or not and it should not be done in the courtroom it should be done in the legislature. They are there to listen to the facts and determine if the facts fit what they have been instructed to consider.
Mandatory sentencing may seem harsh but at the same time they do take away the sympathy factor that some lawyers use to their advantage.
2007-07-23 11:09:00 · answer #2 · answered by Hockeyfan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't admonish the DA for acting as the law requires -- when the DA starts making a habit if ignoring the law, we've lost the rule of law and it becomes a popularity game.
But that's exactly why our legal system allows for the concept of jury nullification -- if the jury is really convinced the law is that bad, that the person should not be punished at all.
A more effective solution in the long term is to change the laws.
2007-07-23 11:12:56 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you...and what's crazy is that the guy who made that law here in the state of Georgia said he never intended it for the purposes of what they locked Genarlow Wilson up for. He's just as outraged as most of our citizens here are about the DA's refusal to bring his crime down to a misdemeanor. The DA claims that they don't want to go that route because it will open up the proverbial floodgates for thousands who were locked up under the same law that actually deserve the sentence they got....whatever...You think race is playing a part in this?
2007-07-23 11:07:44 · answer #4 · answered by mybootyisthatbig79 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not the duty of the jury to decide the harshness of the sentence. Juries decide the guilt or innocence of the suspect.
2007-07-23 11:05:54 · answer #5 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, he should have known better and he knew what could have happened. If his parents didn't tell him then they should go to jail too. Put yourself in the shoes of the girl's parents. If it had been with my daughter, I'd have the guy's nads hanging from the flag pole.
2007-07-23 11:03:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
In some cases it seems to be a necessity.
2007-07-23 11:06:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋