Homestead mailing list

[Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

Rob wrote:

> At  10/6/2004 11:16 AM, Tvo wrote:
>
> > ---after all, the basic function of the court system is "justice", no 
> > more, no less.
>
>
> I thought these days the basic function of the court system (these 
> days) was the "game" of law. Justice is just an expression....
>
>
>
> Rob
> becidawa AT hctc.com
tvoivozhd---1900 was the tipping-point toward monstrous injustice in the 
judicial system"  Today it IS a game---in which the rules are decided 
(and arbitrarily changed) by judges who have no business in depriving a 
jury of the power of deciding a case any way they deem best to produce a 
just verdict in that particular case.

Up until about 1900, judges routinely told juries in criminal trials 
that they had the right to vote their conscience. In the twentieth 
century, with few changes in law, the judicial practice has evolved to a 
completely different stance.

Today, in trials involving controversial laws, during the jury selection 
process, the judge will strike "for cause" anyone who states that he or 
she disagrees with the law. They go even further by telling juries that 
they are ONLY JUDGES OF THE FACTS. Judges tell juries that even if they 
disagree with the law, if the accused is found to have broken it, the 
juries MUST convict. Finally, the judges can hold anyone in contempt of 
court who tries to inform juries of their right to judge the law.

That ":anyone" includes any defendant-lawyer who tries to inform the 
jury that they can vote their conscience---or even one juror telling 
another juror the same thing.