One abetting the mistrial of a murderer ought not be subject to any result (especially not murder by stoning... regardless of what, hypothetically, in a world of certainties, they'd deserve).
There are many reasons for this. The most of which being you know not of the motivation of people voting that a given person is not guilty or guilty and that you are as, not being an omnipotent being as, ignorant, ill advised, biased, and short sighted as the juror who possibly wished to vote to acquit because of reason A, B, or C.
It spits in the face of due process if upon a given verdict the jury is to fear that their result will be second guessed to the point of them being murdered (they'll vote in a manner than they otherwise would), and furthermore, in many ways, unseen but predictably realized, it would bastardize the system of 'justice' much more so than it is. It is bad enough a judge's threats are considered to be viably acted upon when directing the jury to judge the facts of the case and not the law (though they often are acted upon... and that fear, when a judge speaks or directs a juror a certain way corrupts the current system immeasurably) but to have the possibility of death for either an errant verdict or a purposely false one is a slippery slope upon which no Free Man would not even wish to crouch upon. The fear that would propagate throughout the judicial system would infest minor incidents on up to jury trials. The judge would be empowered in their direction, the jury trial becoming more of a farce than it is now.
I understand you aren't technically advocating such a system but by God think before you post. Brandon Rob yourself of freedom referring to things in such a foolish manner, whether right or wrong. Though your previous post (the one I originally responded to) was disturbing.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us