Mason Rountree
-
Content Count
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mason Rountree
-
-
Righteous:
The hypothetical I provided in my prior post does not constitute statutory rape. Statutory rape only applies if the perpretator and victim are less than three years apart in age. Unfortunately, in my law practice, I have seen the injustice of such a scenario.
If a DA in Georgia wants to prosecute for rape/aggravated child molestation under the circumstances in my post, the boy is currently facing 10 years in prison without parole and likely 25 years without parole come January.
Do you believe that is justice? I fear that in our rightful and moral effort to protect children from sexual predators that we misunderstand the scope of minimum mandatory sentences for certain offenders, like the 18-year old boy in my hypothetical.
Don't you think that a judge should have the discretion in my hypothetical to sentence the 18-year old boy to less than 25 years in prison?
-
Not buying it... That is a play on words that does not reflect the original meaning of the verse. That is a poor attempt to change the meaning of the verse at best.
Below is the same verse from different versions of the bible… They all agree that Jesus did in fact preach to spirits in prison. I see no way of getting what your link tries to imply....
NLT
So he went and preached to the spirits in prison--
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NKJV
by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NASB
in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits {now} in prison,
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV
in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
Webster
By which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison;
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
Young
in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach,
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby
in which also going he preached to the spirits [which are] in prison,
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
ASV
in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,
American Standard Version 1901 Info
HNV
in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison,
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
Arcaidy:
Is that information you generated through your own research or cut and paste from elsewhere? Your initial post implies a genuine interest in the meaning of the passage, but then you promptly cite multiple translations of the Bible in an effort to undermine those who offer their opinion. I have to question the genuiness of the interest if you have already made up your mind; otherwise, it seems that you would have made a statement up front and then backed it up with the evidence, after which others could offer a critique. Your intent to create unecessary controversy with what appeared to be a valid question is transparent.
-
There should be sentence guidlines in all cases. Just as there should be award guidelines in civil cases. There have been cases where judges have thrown not only the book, but the whole library, at a convict while other judges have been lenient on another convict for a greater offense. There are people that would hang the Enron folks, but would let a murderer go free. That's just wrong.
Obviously this judge is incompetent and should be removed from office. However, please consider the following with regard to Georgia laws.
Mandatory sentences sound good on paper, but are very complicated in reality, as they do not furnish any context to the alleged crime. Currently, Georgia has minimum mandatory sentences for certain offenses, such as rape and aggravated child molestation.
Under Georgia law, a child under 16 years old cannot, as a matter of law, consent to sex or oral sex. If a girl who is 15 years old has a boyfriend who is 18 years old and they are caught voluntarily engaged in sex or oral sex, the boy has committed rape or aggravated child molestation, because the girl cannot consent.
Under our current minimum mandatory sentence requirements, the boy, if convicted of rape or aggraveted child molestation, would be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison without parole.
Additionally, as many of you may have heard, the Georgia Legislature is expected to pass legislation this January, which will increase the minimum sentence in such cases to 25 years in prison WITHOUT PAROLE. Once this law is enacted, there is little chance that we will ever go back to a reasonable law, since what legislator is going to stand up and fight to reduce sentences for child molesters and rapists. That is, until it is the legislator's 18 year old son who is facing 25 years in prison without parole for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Context, my friends, is key. And context may only be provided by giving judges more discretion, not less discretion, in sentencing.
Tell me how that is fair and right.
-
I think a better question is how much would you accept to lose your freedom, since Americans are arguably the freest people on earth. Interestingly, many Americans don't want freedom. They want to be told what to do, where to work, how to act, what to buy, how to live.
-
The question on what will happen to the courthouse, annex, administration building, and old Regents Bank is unanswered. Details...details. It is sad, especially given the great progess the City has made with the streetscape project and renovation of the theater.
I understand, though, that the Commission offices may be relocated to the Courthouse. Of course, we will then have hundreds of thousands of square feet of space otherwise abandoned, since there will be no purpose in having the annex or the other structures if all of the County government offices are consolidated into a huge 100 acre facility as is currently proposed.
It is painful to imagine what will become of downtown Dallas if the exodus occurs as planned. It seems that the relocation is geared more toward creating a gateway to economic growth on 278 west. While most communities seek to preserve and enhance their historical landmarks, ours seems content with something else.
-
That is does, sometimes it ends up hurting the victim and their families even more. My point is that many who are guilty go free especially if they commit a crime with no witnesses. Today's jurors expect rock solid evidence when sometimes it is not available all because that is what they see on TV.
I would have to disagree with you. IMO, jurors often don't understand the meaning of reasonable doubt. In my experience, Paulding jurors tend to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in criminal cases, which is a much lower standard. The exception to this generalization is DUI/bad check cases - charges that nearly every juror has actually committed (but never been accused of in a court of law).
-
Thanks for the history on the Courthouse. As I understand, the Courthouse was designed by a nationally renowned architect who designed two other courthouses similar to ours (one being in Buchanan in Haralson County).
I think it is misguided for our County to abandon the Downtown Dallas and move the Courthouse. Downtown Dallas is the heart of the County. We should not move the Courthouse out of downtown at an expense of over $50 million, especially when there is a perfectly acceptable site for a new courthouse (if one is required) on the parking lot where City Cafe is located.
Haralson County made the same mistake 30 years ago and abandoned their courthouse for a "modern" structure outside of the downtown area that is not exactly a site for sore eyes. The old Courthouse in Buchanan, while marginally renovated recently, is still in a delapidated condition and the downtown area of Buchanan is depressed. I don't think Downtown Dallas will be in such a sad condition, but the heart of the County is losing its pulse.
-
To follow up on the tyranny of GB, after Paine wrote Part II of the Rights of Man, in which he criticized the monarchy, an arrest warrant was issued because of his sedition. At that time, the monarchy treated the Magna Carta with disdain. Of course, our own government disliked dissent so much only a few years after the Bill of Rights was enacted that the sedition and libel acts were passed, much like in England when Paine was charged with treason. The participation of citizens and politicians alike (such as Jefferson and Madison) helped ensure the defeat of the sedition act.
Today, it seems that the only thing that charges Americans up is when gas prices rise. I think we need a healthy debate on the Patriot Act, for instance, which gives the federal government significant powers to eavesdrop on our personal affairs. In organized society, there is a loss of some freedoms for the benefit of the whole. But giving the federal government unfettered access to our thought processes (ie which library books I choose to check out) is dangerous. Instead of worrying about whether there is a Christmas tree at the courthouse, the ACLU should put its energies into this intrusion. That doesn't fit as well into their agenda, though, nor is it as salacious as attacking trees.
BTW: isn't it ironic that the tree huggers aren't out trying to save Chrismas trees? Oh, Pat, where for art thou? Maybe it's just as ironic and humorous that my ilk are the Christmas tree huggers.
-
Thomas Paine was, to say the least, a non-conformist. I certainly disagree with his unrelenting attacks on Christianity, although I think those views originated because of the "intercourse", as he described, between the Church of England and the monarchy. Like many of our forefathers, though, he was a deist and was consistent in his views. For instance, in 1775 or so, he challenged convential wisdom on the biblical support for slavery in America. He probably questioned the credibility of Americans who, on the one hand demanded freedom from the tyranny of England, while on the other hand approved of slavery. He was an equal opportunity offender (having even attacked President Washington), but a person we should recognize as central to the success of the American Revolution, both based upon his writings and his volunteering in the war even at our country's most critical hour when wrote the immortal words: "These are the times that try men's souls".
-
Eddie:
Thanks for refresher, especially as we celebrate our Creator and the freedoms he has given us at this time of the year. As Great Britain demonstrated, having a document such as the Magna Carta (or the US Constitution in our country) is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not enforced and/or respected. In Great Britain, the King of England and Parliament failed to recognize the liberties "guaranteed" to Englishmen and negotiated via the Magna Carta. For instance, the concept of due process and proportional representation were largely ignored by GB. The King and Parliament ignored the "subjects" in America by refusing representation to the colonies in Parliament and then demanding that they pay their respect to the King by various forms of taxation. Further, impressment of American and French sailors was a common and illegal practice of GB, not to mention the forced quartering of British soldiers in colonial homes.
In our country today, there seems to be such a lack of interest and understanding of our liberties and their source that they are constantly in jeopardy. Unfortunately, Americans seem to think that government operates on cruise control and that their active participation is unecessary. (The Iraqi turnout at the recent election was far superior to our own elections). Such apathy, though, places at risk every right we have. Some argue that apathy is good, because it demonstrates the faith that people have in our government. In other words, they don't need to participate because they have confidence that they are already being taken care of and that their vote/participation will not make a difference. I fear, though, that ignoring the foundation on which those rights based, which we have grown accustomed to, will undermine our ability to resist coercive government in the present and the future. How can government be based upon the consent of the governed if the governed is ignorant and refuses to even participate in the consent? Is the absence of objection the same as consenting to the governmental act? I hope not, as such apathy places our government on the same level as a "benevolent" dictator, who relies upon hereditary succession and the benevolence of his/her posterity. Thomas Paine would be ashamed at our indifference.
It seems that some would argue that the source of our rights is not the Almighty (despite the specific reference in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere) but government itself. While we are government of men (and women
) as some apologetics would point out, the ulimate source of our unalienable rights is not man but God. A government which derives its power not from the governed but from itself is nothing less than a tyranny akin to Great Britain and France in the 1700's. Our ancestors fought too damn hard and risked everything (their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor) for people today not to take the time to even understand or read the documents that they collectively authored.You're a great American, Eddie Bennett.
-
Of course he knew what he was doing. He poured the stuff in the bottle and issued the dare.
It's still the drunkard's responsibility for choosing to drink the stuff.
Lesley:
Have you ever gotten in a car with a driver who was drinking? If you consume alcohol, the answer is likely a yes. Such a scenario is similar to that of the homeless fellow who consumed the concoction. Even if the driver did not appear intoxicated (assume it was a friend and you thought she was sober enough to drive), if the driver was in fact intoxicated and then caused an accident in which you were seriously injured or killed, the driver would nonetheless be prosecuted for vehicular homicide. In fact, I think Lt. Governor Taylor's son is a perfect example of this situation. Yes, you have some culpability for getting in a car with someone you know had been drinking, but if you did not fully appreciate the danger or you chose to assume the risk of the danger because it was your only ride home, the driver would still be responsible for your death.
This hypothetical is not a perfect analogy. In some ways, the situation involving the homeless man is more egregious, because the waiter probably got a kick out of seeing how far he could take advantage of him. It is wholly pathetic and inexcusable, if he knew what was in the container. The fact that he did not have the integrity to appear in court tells me that he won't stand behind his practical joke for fear of the consequences.
***Edited to fix a couple typos and to recognize that other similar scenarios apparently have already been offered, but did not read much of the thread until after my post. PS: I think I hardly qualify as a liberal. People must take responsibility for their actions, which is why the waiter is facing criminal charges. He may be acquitted but it would be irresponsible not to even investigate the possibility that a crime was committed. To excuse the waiter's conduct based solely on the actions of the homeless man would undermine the concept of personal responsibility, as people have a responsibility not to put others at an unreasonable risk, particularly where they have a known diminished capacity.
-
Frankly, I've never been involved in a death penalty case. Thank God. I hope you're right. It certainly makes sense that a person should have the right to waive a jury trial and allow the judge to make the decision. Thanks.
BTW: I've never known you not to enjoy disagreeing with me.
I know what you mean though. Tate has a very accomplished, exeperienced attorney (although he is from Cobb County) representing him, compliments of Paulding County. Other than the appointed Paulding Public Defender, Tom Driggers, I know of no other death-penalty qualified attorneys in Paulding. -
Judge Beavers cannot decide whether to sentence him to death. Under Georgia law, the decision to sentence a person to death rests solely with a jury, which is why jury selection will continue. Actually, jury selection has not even begun yet. First, there must be enough potential jurors who are death-penalty qualified from which a jury will be selected. Now that Tate has pled guilty, the jury, which should be impaneled in the next few weeks, will hear the entire case, although they will no longer have to decide guilt or innocence. Because the death penalty phase of the trial will require presentation of evidence as to the circumstances of the murders, the fact that Tate pled guilty probably saves very little time.
-
This kinda garbage is what forces alot of Peditricians and OBGYN from delivering babies in this country, miss a genetic defect in momma or daddy, grandma or grandpa and suddenly the doctor is somehow responsible for a birthdefect that may or maynot be detectable through current testing technology.
There is no such thing as a wrongful life claim in Georgia or, as far as I know, anywhere in the U.S., so I think your suggestion is faulty. Many doctors complain about high malpractice insurance rates, much like I complain about high homeowners insurance. Instead of limiting what a jury unanimously agrees is fair to compensate someone for a legitimate injury, what about insurance reform?
Other doctors, like my father, could no longer stand the paperwork from Medicare/Medicaid and left private practice. If high verdicts were the cause for high insurance rates, wouldn't you think that states that enacted artificial limits on verdicts would have lower rates? Interestingly, that it is not the case. Despite representations to the contrary, most insurance companies have failed to pass along savings to doctors commensurate with controls on verdicts. The reason is that exhorbitant jury verdicts in med mal cases are largely a myth, although when a patient dies because her doctor failed to diagnose cancer, the verdict does tend to be higher because the jury determines what the value of the patient's life is.
-
If the Florida Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Bush, I guarantee that Gore would have appealed to the US Supreme Court. It is funny to see the Left scream for state's rights when it is politically expedient.
Given the magnitude of a presidential election and the arbitrary disregard for standard procedures in counting votes in such an election, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly had jurisdiction to hear the case.
BTW: did any organization that conducted an "independent" recount based on Gore's standards ever conclude that Gore was the winner?
-
OK, Pat. Now that you've shed your conservative mantra (was this a Halloween prank?), I suppose it's appropriate for me to comment on your most recent post. You wrote:
But as the 5-4 supreme court decision election of 2000 showed, bedrock principal means nothing when power is the goal. The strict-constructionists, noting that they didn't want a set a precedent, ruled that the Federal government and their court took precedence over the state supreme court in a matter of an election. This decision by the conservatives on that court was a flip-flop of monumental proportions as states rights have been a bedrock of the conservative judicial philosophy since before Renquist was first nominated by Nixon.When bedrock principals are discarded the moment they become inconvenient, one begins to wonder whether the only principal is power.
The focus of the US Supreme Court was not how to micromanage the election process in Florida, it was whether there was a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution. Those issues are uniquely decided by the US Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court of Florida can interpret the election process by applying the provision contained in the US Constitution, those decisions are subject to appeal.
Did you really want the Florida Supreme Court to decide the 2000 presidential election or the U.S. Supreme Court to decide it???
I think, for the benefit of our national unity and respect for the US Constitution, that the US Supreme Court was the correct court to decide the issue. This wasn't a state's rights issue. Otherwise, we wouldn't be fighting over the Georgia Voter ID law in federal court. It is inconsistent for liberals to say that federal courts have jurisdiction over the Georgia Voter ID law, but that the same court does not have jurisdiction over equal protection issues when it comes to voting.
-
Pat:
I knew your true colors would emanate brightly from this topic. I have a few questions and thoughts for you.
Why is it that society uses the term "history" instead of "herstory"?
Or women instead of womyn?
Or that God is always referenced as He, not Her?
I'll answer for you. That's my right. It's a subtle effort by people like you to subjugate womyn and return them to the role envisioned by Paul in I Timothy.
In 2008, Hillary won't be known as Commander-in-Chief after getting elected. No, you and your comrades will bow down and call her Cowomyn-in-Chief. Eradicating sexist language from the vocabulary is as important as removing the Ten Cowomynments from the Courtroom. And you can forget about Xmas trees in public places.
Just like you won't let us write a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n on this site, which is a misguided attempt to suppress disussion of the issue and confuse the readers, we won't let you write Paulding.com, which is likewise a subliminal effort to insert the apostle Paul into our lexicon, so that every time we type it, we are reminded of the epistles, especially those to Timothy. Go figure. Wait...I can't write that. That's a sexist reference, wrongly emphasizing a womyn's physique.
Equality means eliminating segregated bathrooms for men and womyn, which just reinforce the concept of separate but equal.
With Hillary in '08, womyn will have a constitutional right to breast-feed their children in public until their 7 years old. And she'll appoint justices that will protect a womyn's right to abort her child until the day before the scheduled delivery, even if she decides she doesn't like the gender. After all, it's her body and if she wants to smoke crack and meth in the ninth month of pregnancy, that's her choice, isn't it? And to Hell with bras and public beaches which discriminate against the topless.
Long hair? Gone. And you can forget about that shaving thing. If it's good enough for the French, it's good enough for us.
As far as I'm concerned, Alito is red meato.
-
Jaycat:
You're absolutely right.
The constitution didn't say anything to suggest that things couldn't be separate but equal and it worked for old grandad ... Why that's when them librals started makin them laws from the bench.
And that 10th amendment, about all things not specifically enumerated in the constitution and or the states are reserved by the people ... you know things like basic privacy ... just don't count when the mindset is that them woomen is property. I mean, it'd have said privacy iffin they'd meant privacy, wouldn't they have?
I mean, we'd have passed the equal rights amendment if we'd have really, really wanted to change that, rite!
This here guy is going to make sure we don't never hafta change. He may make it where we can whup up on the woomen and chillin agin; don't you think. After all, the good book says, spare the rod and you spoil the child.
Yeeeehaw ... them womenfolks is gonna have to cook them biskits early in the morn again or their buts gonna be sore that nite.
cubbys (the 'c' is for conservative and the 's' is for satire)
Pat:
I can't believe you, you right-wing, gun-loving hypcrite. Jaycat and the other mysoginists like you are seeking to role back the years so that women have to undergo back alley a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n-s. You guys even seek to deny Americans equal protection to have consensual sex with animals. How dare you. It's my body and if I want to run around town naked as a jaycat, then that's my right.
All you conservatives want to do is to get into my bedroom and force your morals on me. Even though that Alito (pronounced Elito, probably a nickname given by his college fraternity for his real name: Elitist) went to Yale Law School and was even praised by Senator Edward Kennedy for his intellect when he was unanimously approved by the US Senate and appointed to the federal appeals court in 1990, he probably bought his way through that Yale just like "W". It's time for workers of the world to unite, conquer and divide, lest the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the evil, capitalistic world by which people like you subjugate women, minorities, the elderly, the poor and any other exploited demographic that will never succeed in this racist, sexist society. I am appalled. We must stop Alito or I'll go incognito.
-
The liberals are the ones that want a majoritarian rule?! What do you think the evangelical community in this country wants? They want the majority to rule and the minority to be damned. Oh, let's just forget about that whole tryanny of the majority, though.
My point is that a liberal's approach to constitutional law promotes the concept of majoritarian rule, because if "society" decides that a constitutional provision is no longer important in this day and age, despite our founding father's adoption of the provision, then the constitutional provision should give way to societal norms. What the evangelical community generally supports is a strict constructionist who will not decide constitutional issues based on what's cool, hip or "tight" at the time.
-
Lesley:
What women's rights are you referring to that are in danger? From a review of your attachments, it is apparently the right to aboortzion under the US Constitution, as provided in Roe v. Wade and other decisions. Is that a litmus test to serve on the US Supreme Court? That a Justice will not vote to change Roe? If so, then Sandra Day O'Conner would not even be qualified, as the Court in Casey substantially changed Roe, although it did not overrule it.
Even if Roe is reversed, the right to aboortzion still exists. It means, though, that states have the right to regulate aboortzion more stringently than they already do. Not having a US Constitutional right to aboortzion does not mean that the right doesn't necessarily exist.
I know this thread could quickly turn into a debate about aboortzion, which Pat likes to encourage as much as Neal Boortz. But remember, under a liberal's approach to constitutional law, all enumerated Constitutional rights are subject to change at the whim of the US Supreme Court. Nothing, IMO, is more dangerous to a woman's rights than the possibility that the US Supreme Court would be controlled by a liberal majority because they believe the US Constitution is a "living" document which should be changed as societies change. In other words, majoritarian rule dictates Constitutional rights, including the right to vote, the right to free speach, the right to practice one's religion freely, etc., etc.
-
Inflation is, put very simply, too much money chasing too few goods. To control inflation, the economy must either increase the supply of goods/services or reduce the amount of money in the economy chasing those goods, which is done through monetary policy.
Enacting a minimum wage is inflationary because it artificially increases the wages paid to employees while the overall economy chases the same amount of goods, regardless of whether the employee is more productive or not. Moreover, it is inflationary not just because of the artificial increase for mimimum wage earners, but also because it artificially raises the wages paid to non-minimum wage earners. For instance, if a minimum wage earner is making $5.15 per hour and it is artificially increased to $6.25, employers would need to artificially increase the wages of those employees making, for example, $6.00 per hour to $7.15 per hour. Likewise, an employer would need to increase the wages of those employees previously making $7.00 per hour to $8.15 per hour. Otherwise, an entry level/less experienced worker would be paid more than the more experience/mid-level worker. By artificially increasing the largest expense to most businesses requires businesses to either cut their profits, reduce their workforce, or raise their prices. Neither of those scenaris is good for the consumer or the prospective employee, as higher prices harm the consumer and less profits means fewer jobs/raises to existing employees. As a result, increasing the minimum wages is not only inflationary, it actually causes unemployment.
Since those earning the minimum wage tend to be young people, statistically the greatest negative impact of a minimum wage is on the employability of teenage black males - those who need to get their first foot on the rung of the ladder more than any other group. Unlike the race-baiters on the Left, I'm not suggesting that raising the minimum wage is racist. But the effect of raising the minimum wage is absorbed disproportionately by young, black males.
Good intentions don't necessarily make good policy. As Markdavd pointed out, if raising the minimum wage is the panacea the Left makes it out to be, why not increase the minimum wage to $50.00 per hour.
Rather than government intrusion into businesses, if you want to increase wages for low income earners, provide them with an incentive to be more productive and provide more opportunities for advancement through more employment, not less employment. That involves reducing regulations on businesses and lowering marginal tax rates for individuals. Once again, though, the Left wrongly accuses those who support such policies as only caring for the rich. GIGO.
-
First, you must file the lien within three calendar months from the last date you supplied labor, services or materials to the subject real property. To file the lien, record it in the Superior Court Clerk's Office in Cobb County (if that is where the property is lcoated). The lien must contain certain information, including the full name of the lien claimant, the amount of money owed, the legal name of the current owner of the property where the improvement was made, the name of the contractor to whom the materials were supplied, the date when the claim becaome due and owing, and the full legal description of the property. When you file the lien for record, mail a copy of it that same day by certified mail to both the owner of the property and the contractor.
Filing a materialman's lien is only the first step. To foreclose on the lien, you must then file a lawsuit within one year of the date the claim became due and owing.
There are very technical requirements and very well may require an attorney. There are services that file liens for folks, which cost around $150 to $200. Our firm typically charges this amount as well, although we need to have a legal description pulled if you don't have one.
Attached is form I've used for a materialman's lien.
-
What kind of lien? There are several different kinds (materialman's/judgment, etc.). What are the facts/issues, etc.?
- Mason
-
I'm Episcopalian, which is a Protestant denomination. It borrows heavily from the tradition and sacrament/rituals of the Catholic Church while embracing Protestantism. While its appearance may imply otherwise to some because of its emphasis on tradition/formality, it is a very open church and encourages the sacrament of eucharist/communion from all baptized Christians as often as the Church meets (ie at least weekly). It is also a liturgical church, which means that we orally participate in the service, usually with the Book of Common Prayer.
In terms of marriage, it allows anyone to marry in the Church provided the couple accepts basic Christian doctrine, ie Christ is our Savior. I am not sure of whether it will perform a marriage ceremony between a Christian and non-Christian, although my suspicion is that it would if the priest approves after counseling. Pre-marriage counseling is a pre-requisite to marriage.
One more reason to hate liberalism
in Religious discussion
Posted
I think you're talking about the concept of nullification: that if a jury disagrees with a law, it can simply nullify or ignore it. I'm not sure if your post is in reponse to mine, such that you believe a 25 year sentence in the scenario in my post is so unreasonable that an attorney could argue the jury should nullify the law. The problem is that juries are not allowed to hear what the potential sentence of convicting the defendant is. A jury's obligation is determine guilt or innocence, not punishment. As a result, the attorney cannot argue to a jury that the client should be found not guility on the ground that the client would be subject to 25 years in prison without parole.
Juries are qualified by the judge as to their obligation to follow the law as the judge gives them. Nullification is not a concept, as far as I am aware, that is practiced in Georgia. It's about as persuasive as a taxpayer deciding the IRS cannot tax your income, as some groups suggest. A defendant's attorney would be reprimanded by the Court if the attorney attempted to argue that the jury should ignore, and essentially overrule, the law that the judge gave them.
BTW: Nullification is not a conservative argument, as it violates the doctrine of separation of powers and the rule of law. It basically legitimizes the idea that a jury should ignore the will of the people through our republican form of government.