Does this man sound crazy to you?

Question

Judge versus jury
Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this democratic principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man", Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[118]

This is DR. RON PAUL!

Answer 1

Sounds fine to me. He would be welcome in my house.
I have heard that if you believe as he does, it is best not to mention it while they are selecting a jury. But , I can also think of circumstances under which I would regard it as my duty to come out of the jury box and string up the prosecutor and maybe even the judge. I'm from Wyoming, we have a long tradition of such things. Helps keep the riff raff in line.

Answer 2

Not at all; what he's talking about is called "jury nullification." Since juries represent the community they are in a unique position to judge the law itself as well as the defendant. Although the practice is frequently frowned upon that is mostly because we are supposed to be sheep who go where we're told and do what we're told. There is no law against it; indeed, as Paul implies, it would not be possible to outlaw it.

To further illustrate: say Tom is arrested on possession of marijuana. The evidence is clear and incontrovertible. Tom elects a jury trial. The jury finds that although Tom is guilty of possession of marijuana it also finds that the law itself is unjust. To appease the court they can come back with a finding of guilty on a lesser charge (such as disturbing the peace, a Class C misdemeanour) and there's not a thing the judge can do about it. The prosecution can try to appeal though it would probably not be advisable; the further proceedings would make it evidence that we, the people, are not in control.

Answer 3

No, he sounds completely sane. Jurors are part of the reason that prohibition was repealed. Bootleggers and other people making, selling, and buying alcohol would be arrested and then the jury would find them not guilty.

Answer 4

He is talking about jury nullification. He is absolutely right.

Unfortunately, he is also a Republican. Since none of the GOP hopefuls have offered any kind of apology for the vindictive behaviour of their colleagues in office, none of them deserve any respect.

Even though he is actually right, above. It has to happen sometimes.

Answer 5

Judge is better to decide than the jury because the latter did not study law but only decide on their common sense.

Answer 6

I thought this question was about a actual mental patient.

Oh well.

Which cases actually do this?

Answer 7

not crazy at all , he gave you what he believed and why , you can either like it or not , agree or disagree, and it sounds like there is precedent for what he says