by Mark Yannone
If you're not convinced of the folly of the so-called War on Drugs by now, you've been in a coma for the last thirty years. The only ones who haven't agreed are the people who profit from it--a long list that includes the drug suppliers, our police departments, and the vast criminal justice industry that thrives on the half million Americans we have behind bars for no good reason.
Every time the subject comes up, the War on Drugs is pronounced ridiculous, counterproductive, and a huge waste of money. Then the public cries out to see it end, and promptly does absolutely nothing useful.
How and Why
There is a very simple way to end the so-called War on Drugs. When you sit on a jury in a drug case, vote to acquit. In fact, the law itself requires you to acquit. You must vote NOT GUILTY. Here's why.
Pass this message on to everyone you know who might be eligible to sit on a jury. If you don't convict, the war is over. It's just that simple. And it's legal, moral, and sensible.
Note: If the judge or prosecutor suspect you might vote to acquit in a drug case, you'll be removed during voir dire and won't be allowed to serve. So if you want to serve when you are called for jury duty, keep your mouth shut until the jury begins to deliberate in private.
About the War on Drugs
Ron Paul's Position
Thursday, October 25, 2007
How to end the War on Drugs by 5 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments posted. Click to read or comment.:
"So if you want to serve when you are called for jury duty, keep your mouth shut until the jury begins to deliberate in private."
I am not sure it is safe to open up your mouth to express your opinion, belief, reasons, etc. for a "not guilty" vote.
When you are being empaneled the judge administers an oath to abide by his instructions and interpretation of the law as he gives it. To later on in the confidence of the jury room, let it be known all along you intended to be the trier of the evidence as well as the law could land you in a trial of your own for a number of charges. They often voluntarily interview the jurors after the verdict, some will participate, and it will come out.
The safest mantra to utter is "the prosecutor failed to meet the burden of proof"...say it again...and again...
Then you can never be arrested (yet) for your vote as a jurist. Not without them investigating your rear big time to come up with evidence you were intentionally trying to subvert their conviction.
The most timid among us can remain quiet and vote to acquit. Jurors don't need to explain their votes to anyone on the planet.
The judge knows that juries have the right to try the law, and we know that he has been told not to inform the jury of that right. He cannot make us swear not to do that which is our right.
In drug cases, the prosecutor and the judge are in violation of the law by proceeding with the trial, knowing that the two necessary elements of a crime are not there.
The juror who votes to acquit is obeying the law.
Juries are also supposed to have the authority to pass judgment on the law as well as the defendant. Jury nullification has been hidden away in a back room some where in the legal arena. Sorta like what Bush & many other Prez's & Congresses have done to the Constitution.
This is why we need to find the best candidate for returning to original intent Constitutional government. They should have a highly rated PRO-Constit. voting record.
Who in the world, or the USA rather, could that be? Ron Paul.
No one has a 100% Congressional voting record but Ron. No one on Capitol Hill that I have ever heard of has been calling for a return to the Founding document & Founder's advice for over 20 years. Then there are the bills he has authored or sponsored...
Post a Comment