HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Trial by jury - past tense?
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  Marin County, Ca.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.185409.7450@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>
>  The percentage of criminal felony cases heard by juries in NC has
>decreased from 6.9% ten years ago to 2.9% in 1990-91.  There is also
>a similar national trend.  The prosecutors and judges intereviewed
>generally felt that the percentage was lower than desired, and was due
>to insufficient resources to try additional cases.  A major concern
>was that plea bargaining to lower than justified charges has been
>occurring.  (Info from Sunday's Raleigh News & Observer.)

IMHO this is directly a result of the War On Drugs (tm).  We are
filling our courts and jails with people who have commited "drug offenses".
Our "leaders" have decided that it is politically more expedient to allow 
rapists and muggers to get out of jail sooner than they otherwise would so that 
they can be seen as "tough on drugs".  The fact that drug use and abuse continues
un-abated doesn't seem to worry them.  This will continue as long as the
American public is gullible enough to believe that we can cure people's
drug problems by throwing them in jail.

Tough questions which I never hear reporters ask politicians about the
war on drugs: 
	Which taxes are you going to raise, or what areas of law-
	enforcement are you going to cut to pay for stiffer
	penalties for drug use/possesion ?

Here in California we have been building (and filling) prisons at an
astronomical rate.  The tax bill for this is staggering, but the average
taxpayer hasn't yet figured out the connection. 

Btw, I wrote a letter to our governor (Pete Wilson) asking him the above question
after he advocated making marijuana posession a felony in his succesful campaign
to become governor.  He answered my letter, but not my question (surprise, surprise).
He also hasn't done anything to make good on this threat (thank goodness !!).

Guido



Xref: sparky misc.legal:9317 alt.society.civil-liberty:3474 talk.politics.misc:18304
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Summary: This was no kidnapping.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:06:48 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Apr10.165128.24808@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman) writes:

> . . . Assuming that the US had not 
>installed a puppet povernment when we left Panama, and that that government
>was outraged at the US government coming into their country and kidnapping
>one of their citizens.  Would you then say that President Bush should be
>criminally liable in Panama for ordering the kidnapping of Noreiga, and
>that the Panamanians would be justified in kidnapping him and trying him
>back in their country?  [Jonathan Woodman]

No.

If Manuel Noriega had been a law-abiding fine fellow instead of a 
protector of cocaine smugglers, then capturing him and bringing him 
to trial in North America would indeed have been "kidnapping," and 
President Bush should indeed have been criminally liable in Panama 
for ordering the kidnapping of an innocent citizen.  But those are 
not the facts of this case.  Mr. Noriega's arrest was no more a 
"kidnapping" than John Gotti's was.  

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: cuthbert@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David Cuthbert)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do you understand?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:21:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>accepting a plea bargain, and to testify they are doing it of their own
>free will and solely because it's true.  It's a lie in every case; they
>are ALSO testifying to their guilt because not doing so could get them a
>more severe sentence.  

>                                - Eric Postpischil
>                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com

They are getting a better deal because it is easier for the court system if 
guilty people don't require extensive trials. The plea bargain is a "reward"
for cooperation. Without a plea bargain the defendant is not in a worse
position, he is in the beginning position. The defendant who goes to full trial
is betting that the prosecution won't be able to establish as strong a case as
they (the prosecution) claim. If he's wrong, he faces the relevant sentence. A
defendant who plea bargains conceeds the result (his guilt) and gets a better
deal since the prosecution is free to concentrate its resources elsewhere.

It's not that going to trial gets a more severe sentence, going to trial gets
te basic sentence. Plea bargaining gets a better sentence. But to be sentened
the defendant must be guilty. The plea bargain, in effect, includes a
confession. Confessions can't be coerced, hence the "voluntary" language. It
seems strange to say that recognizing the consequences of a prior action (the
basic [trial awarded] penalty for the crime committed) is coercize. It may not
be pleasant, but that's not the same as coercion. 

-Dave
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Summary: Thoughts are free
Keywords: Die Gedanken sind frei
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:20:31 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Apr4.133216.16736@yang.earlham.edu> 
jessec@yang.earlham.edu writes:

>   On a legal level, thoughts should be sacrosanct.  My opinion.
>   [Jesse]

Jesse is not the only one holding this opinion.  Someone who used to
post here a lot -- unfortunately, I've forgotten his name -- had as
part of his .sig the old German song about thoughts' being free:

   "Die Gedanken sind frei,
    Wer kann sie erraten?
    Sie fliehen vorbei
    Wie naechtliche Schatten.
      Kein Mann kann sie wissen,
      Kein Jaeger erschiessen;
      Es bleibet dabei:
      Die Gedanken sind frei."

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intent (was Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:00:49 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Apr13.211758.13121@smartstar.com> rand@smartstar.com (Rand McKinney) writes:
 
>One point, though: if you *express* your intent in some way,
>then it can be considered a crime.  For example, people are arrested for
>saying they are going to assasinate the president, or threatening to do
>violence of some kind.  I think this is sort of a gray area, though...
 
If you are ever arrested because someone accuses you of being dangerous, 
the pigs will try to goad you into some kind of threat.  Then they can 
get you, even though you have not done anything.    
 
Isn't just thinking such thoughts a Christian sin?  Then it would be a 
violation of "natural law". 


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Electronic copy of the Declaration of Independence
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:29:43 GMT

fas@mudlick.fibercom.com (Andy Smoak) writes:

>Anybody have an electronic copy of the Declaration of Independence that
>they could e-mail me?
[...]

=================
README
=================
Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the
U.S. Constitution and mailing addresses for U.S. Senators and
Representatives.

The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/civics".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
      civics <filenames>
where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

=================
administration.address
=================
Addresses for writing to the President, the Vice-President, and
cabinet members.

=================
congress.address
=================
A list of U.S. Senators and Representatives. The list includes
name, party, hometown, DC telephone, and committee assignments.

=================
constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States

=================
dec_of_ind
=================
The Declaration of Independence

=================
fcc
=================
Address, names, and fax number for the Federal Communications Commission

=================
foia
=================
The file is for individuals or organizations who wish to make an
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) application to a federal agency.

=================
gov.contact
=================
Tells how to call a representive or senator, how to call the White House
(comment line, fax, general), how to write Congress or the White House.
Also, gives names of key leaders of congress.

- Carl

=================
house-of-reps.tel-and-fax
=================
House of Representatives faxes and phones

=================
judiciary.fax
=================
The fax numbers of the members of the Senate judiciary committee.

=================
media.fax
=================
Fax numbers for major media.

=================
senate.label-ready
=================
Mailing labels for U.S. Senators

=================
=================
Last update
Sat Mar 21 14:30:11 EST 1992

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: fas@mudlick.fibercom.com (Andy Smoak)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Electronic copy of the Declaration of Independence
Date: 2 Apr 92 14:10:35 GMT
Distribution: usa


Anybody have an electronic copy of the Declaration of Independence that
they could e-mail me?

Oh, if this is not the appropriate group, sorry.  I looked for
xxx.history or something like that, but could not find one.

Thanks in advance,

Andy Smoak
-- 
F. Andrew Smoak                    PHONE: (703) 342-6700,  (800) 423-1183
FiberCom, Inc.                       FAX: (703) 342-5961
P.O. Box 11966                  INTERNET: fas@fibercom.com
Roanoke, VA  24022-1966             UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!fas
From: joeh@pro-franklin.cts.com (Joe Hill)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: INFO: References and Quotes about Jury Nullification
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:17:39 GMT
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

In <21219@hacgate.UUCP> tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.211704.22206@crash.cts.com> danr@pro-franklin.cts.com (Daniel Roberts) writes:
>>I wonder if some of the support for jury nullification in historic writings
>>would be tempered by the reality that today's jury often does not reflect a
>>true cross section of the community nor the peers of the defendant to the
>>degree that it did when the Bill of Rights was drafted.
>
>If you are a stable white male resident of what passes for a "community" 
>nowadays, a jury is less likely to be composed of what you would regard as
>"peers".  Otherwise the modern jury is probably closer to the ideal than the
>late 19th century jury.  In any case, according to my dictionary one 
>definition of "peer" is "equal before the law", which is theoretically
>true of all citizens (those with political connections being even more
>equal).
>
>As for comprising a "cross-section", I would guess that at least people who
>know much about the Bill of Rights or jury nullification are discriminated
>against.
>
>	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
>		Just say NO to incumbents.


I must disagree the average juror I've seen (counting the entire pool of
jurors who appear at the courthouse not just those who actually serve) is
of a different race from the average defendant. Regardless of race the
average juror is of higher socio-economic standing and higher educational
atainment then the average defendant. The average juror is also older.

This is perhaps a product of the jury pool coming from lists of registered
voters. 

Joe
----
ProLine:  joeh@pro-franklin
Internet: joeh@pro-franklin
UUCP:     crash!pro-franklin!joeh
ARPA:     crash!pro-franklin!joeh@nosc.mil
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Noriega Trial Implications
Summary: Alcohol and nicotine pushers, beware!
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:06:42 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <olson.703268578@acf9> olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson) writes:

>And I'd like to see some evidence that crack babies exist.  The most
>recent review found only a possible connection with urinary tract
>defects.  The rest were attributed to other know defect-causing
>substances such as alcohol and nicotine.  I expect that Matt Rosenblatt
>is more than willing to call for justice for those drug pushers who sell
>from convenience stores, those propagandists who push on TV and on 
>billboards, and who make and grow the stuff.   I wish him luck.
>[David Olson]

Actually, there was a case a few years ago involving an Indian mother
who had given birth to three babies with fetal alcohol syndrome.  When
she became pregnant a fourth time, an Indian court ordered her not
to drink any alcholic beverages.  She ignored the order.  So the
court had her locked up in jail for the duration of the pregnancy,
at the term of which I understand she gave birth to a baby without
fetal alcohol syndrome.

I approve of the Indian court's action in that case, and I am more
than willing to call for application of the same principle elsewhere.
We can't have nicotine and alcohol poisoning our babies any more 
than we can have crack cocaine doing so.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Jury Pools
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:24:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Apr14.212429.5727
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University

I am interested in hearing why jury pools are selected from a county's 
registered voters versus just the at-large adult population.  My assumption is 
that it is this way across the United States--not just my home state of Ohio.
Has it been from the inception of this country that juries were selected from
registered voters?  Or, did this criterion slowly creep into law because it
presented to the judicial system a more manageable group to select from and a
higher probability of finding "good" jury members.

You may well guess that I have just filled out a questionnaire required of
prospective jury members.  Constitutionally, isn't the defendant entitled to a
jury of his peers?  Since when, historically speaking, was the definition of
peers narrowed to mean registered voters?

Any legal scholars/historians out there?
Thanks in advance.
JH
Xref: sparky misc.legal:8918 alt.society.civil-liberty:3257
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:50:36 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr5.043929.1633@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>
>    I've heard of cases where the judge ruled that the defending
>lawer and the defendant were prohibited from reading to the jury the
>law it's self (it was some section of U.S.C. 
>that they wanted to read) that would of proved their
>case, the prosecution filed some sort of motion to suppress the reading or
>the mentioning of the law it's self. The defence tried to read in the
>law any way and they were found in contempt and the jury was ordered to
>disreguard it.
>    How is this possible and how can a judge get away with suppressing
>the law? I thought the law was the law and it was always admisable.

I dunno.  Perhaps you could tell us which case this was.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: So Guilty They're Innocent
Keywords: Burn out the evil
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 09:17:02 GMT

In article <1992Mar20.125120.10480@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>This whole debate looks like the beating of a dead horse to me...
>despite all the [occasional] public brouhaha over the insanity
>defense, the fact of the matter is that (a) it's a pretty rare
>thing, (b) it rarely works, and -- most importantly -- (c) even when
>it does work, all that it usually means is that the defendant spends
>most of the rest of his life in an unpleasant mental institution
>rather than an unpleasant prison.  (Let's face it, folks: even if
>Jeffrey Dahmer had been found insane, the only way he'd have ever
>exited a facility for the criminally insane within the next fifty
>years or so would have been feet first.)

right.
and there was a case in which a guy was charged with shoplifting or
something, punishable by up to a year in jail.  he pleaded the
insanity defense (must've been a public defender or something) and
it worked (not guilty by reason of insanity).  well, that was in 1976.
7 years later, he was still in st. elizabeth's (mental hospital).
the supreme court said it's ok to keep him there for 7 years.  for all
i know, he's still there.  you can actually spend more time in confinement
by pleading insanity than if you just take your lumps.
moral: don't plead insanity unless it's something really big time.

-teddy
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Jury Pools
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:36:43
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.212429.5727@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

   I am interested in hearing why jury pools are selected from a
   county's registered voters versus just the at-large adult population.
   My assumption is that it is this way across the United States--not
   just my home state of Ohio.  Has it been from the inception of this
   country that juries were selected from registered voters?  Or, did
   this criterion slowly creep into law because it presented to the
   judicial system a more manageable group to select from and a higher
   probability of finding "good" jury members.

In Massachusetts, the names are gathered from the town census, from
driving records, voting lists, etc.  I was called when I was a resident
of a dormitory (my primary residence was not Massachusetts at the time;
I didn't have a Mass. license, etc.).

A feature of the system that I like is that it's "one day, one trial".
This means that you're called on a particular day (you can change it to
any day up to one year after when you're called).  If you serve on a
trial, that's it (I served on a short trial and was out by 2 PM).  If
you don't serve on a trial that day, you're also done (if there are no
trials scheduled that day, and they tell you that morning, you're
done!).  If you can't serve more than three days, you won't be put on a
panel for a long trial (I actually had a problem with more than two
days, and I told the judge, and he put me down not to be on any trial
lasting more than two days).  Helps spread the burden around more
fairly.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Woodman)
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Association (Pamphlet)
Organization: The Ohio State University College of Law
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:22:54 GMT

In article  tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:
>In article  matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>Where is the computer that can listen to several witnesses, observe
>>their demeanor as they testify, and sort out the truth from their
>>conflicting testimony about what "the facts" of the case are?  Who
>>could write the program?

>There you have it.  Courtroom demeanor is the litmus test for guilt.

No one is saying that courtroom demeanor is the determinative of guilt.
Rather, Mr. Rosenblatt is asserting, and I agree, that there are
nuances to interpreting verbal testimony that a computer could not
be programmed to pick up. 

For instance, two people could say exactly the same things, and as such,
the transcripts of their testimony would look identical. And yet, one
person may have been extremely nervous, and testified in a way that 
would lead human beings to question the veracity of the testimony. 
Likewise, another person might use the same words, but appear calm
and sure of the testimony they are giving. People are able to pick up
on body language and other clues that will help them determine how much
weight to give to various pieces of testimony.

>That is how our marvelous and highly respected (ha ha) judicial system works.

The judicial system relies heavily on the human factor, as it should.
The "facts" in a legal case are rarely so cut-and-dried that you could
just type them into a computer and have a verdict rendered in milliseconds.
Justice relies heavily on the ability of ordinary citizens to make 
determinations of fact that are derived through a series of inarticuable
steps, just as they do every day of their lives.

>Seriously though, you may be right.  The best use of a computer is not
>to judge the facts, but to throw out the moronic laws.

I doubt whether computers would fare any better at determining which
laws are "moronic" and which ones are not. A computer does not have
pity or sympathy, and a computer does not get angry. A computer does
not have compassion. And most important, a computer does not have the
experiences to know what it is like to be a human being. For that, it
takes another human being. That is why we will continue to use jurors
who can understand the people they judge.

-- 
Jonathan Woodman                   \ "I mean, sex is one thing, but reading
jwoodman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /  to someone is *really* intimate." C. Duda
The Ohio State University          \ "Oh, you can slice that salami of 
   College of Law                  /  copyright any number of ways." S. Halpern
Newsgroups: misc.legal