Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnin' oil
The only "facts" in the story are that the wife had ALS and the husband shot her. The rest is conjecture. Based on those facts, I would indict and convict.
And allowing a jury to decide which laws should be enforced and when is absolutely unworkable.
|
Actually, it is imperitive that a jury be not just allowed to do so, but be mandated to do so. It is our last line of defense against over reaching, over zealous government. Much has been written about a jury's duty to not only consider guilt under the law, but the veracity of the law. Moses is spot on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses
And that's exactly why I believe a jury has three distinct duties;
1) Decide guilt or innocence.
2) Determine if the law is reasonable.
3) Determine if the law was applied appropriately.
|