Borderline lifeboat situations

[B. Royce 0]

What I said did not "only acknowledge the legitimacy of using force to escape if you are literally "faced with the muzzle of the gun"". Rather, it spelled out the facts of reality that not every escape attempt necessitates the use of force, that there are alternative methods of escape that do not have to involve being in or placing one's self in an emergency situation. What I said does not in any way advocate one method over the other, nor does it judge one method to be morally superior to the other. And as I further clarified, I would advocate the method most likely to succeed such dictatorship.

However, I still disagree that "living in a dictatorship" necessarily constitutes an emergency situation based on Rand's description, (which I agree with), though "living in a dictatorship" is certainly going to give rise to a higher frequency of encountering emergency situations at the hand of the government (and probably the citizenry as well).

Escaping (when the dictator says you must not, or else) IS using force, whether or not you meet up against anyone on your way out.

[RationalBiker 0]

Escaping (when the dictator says you must not, or else) IS using force, whether or not you meet up against anyone on your way out.

I disagree with this as well.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Escaping (when the dictator says you must not, or else) IS using force, whether or not you meet up against anyone on your way out.

What do you mean by "force" here?

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

And, while the criminal analogy is valid, I would not accept "lying to the IRS" as being analogous, at least not in our current society. Although we are a mixed society, we remain a fundamentally rights-respecting nation, and as such we should be law abiding, whether or not we agree with the particular law.

I don't want to get off topic, so perhaps you can briefly indicate which of the Bill of Rights Amendments in the Constitution have not been violated to a significant degree in today's society. We may be a "rights-respecting nation" but that's more due to custom and tradition, and it pertains more towards personal interactions. Individual relationships with organizations and especially governments are often on the other side of the legal mixture. I'm sure your familiar with how non-objective law permeates our society, not to mention all the victimless laws on the books (prostitution, drugs, etc). If I were on a jury, I doubt I would vote to convict someone whose only crime was possessing or selling a particular drug.

[B. Royce 0]

What do you mean by "force" here?

Any law, even irrational laws, can only be broken by using force. If you have a "No Tresspassing" sign on your property, I am using force (the physical force of my body) when I walk across your boundary line, whether or not you even see me. The same applies to a dictator's law.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

And, while the criminal analogy is valid, I would not accept "lying to the IRS" as being analogous, at least not in our current society. Although we are a mixed society, we remain a fundamentally rights-respecting nation, and as such we should be law abiding, whether or not we agree with the particular law.

I don't want to get off topic, so perhaps you can briefly indicate which of the Bill of Rights Amendments in the Constitution have not been violated to a significant degree in today's society. We may be a "rights-respecting nation" but that's more due to custom and tradition, and it pertains more towards personal interactions. Individual relationships with organizations and especially governments are often on the other side of the legal mixture. I'm sure your familiar with how non-objective law permeates our society, not to mention all the victimless laws on the books (prostitution, drugs, etc). If I were on a jury, I doubt I would vote to convict someone whose only crime was possessing or selling a particular drug.

Although I am hampered in a number of ways, and although the government sticks its metaphorical hand into my pocket more than I would like, I remain quite free to pursue my values and to benefit from that pursuit. I can project how much more I could enjoy and achieve in a world governed by laissez-faire capitalism, but for now I will continue to flourish in the freedom of the world that I have now. If happiness is the goal of my life, then I applaud my country for being, with all its faults, the freest country with the best sense of life on Earth, because I am a gloriously happy man.

If freedom of speech goes the way of the dodo bird, then all bets are off, Until then, I will basically be a law-abiding citizen.

p.s. Just tell the judge you are against drug laws, and you will be off the jury,

[Arnold 0]

p.s. Just tell the judge you are against drug laws, and you will be off the jury,

If we all do that, a conviction is assured.

I understand the need to respect law, but if it clearly is not objective, and is harmful to an individual?

Would you not assess the negative of law breaking (yes it is a negative), against the negative consequences for yourself? Abortion for example? Following your advice would not help a desperate woman. I would stay on the jury, and refuse to find guilty.

[RationalBiker 0]

Following your advice would not help a desperate woman. I would stay on the jury, and refuse to find guilty.

If I understand what you have written here, it seems to have a "duty" theme behind it. Is it your position that a person has a duty to serve on a jury in a case where they otherwise oppose the law being prosecuted simply because the accused might need your help?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

p.s. Just tell the judge you are against drug laws, and you will be off the jury,

I would stay on the jury, and refuse to find guilty

But you will be asked during jury selection if you object to these drug laws. Would you then lie to get on the jury?

[B. Royce 0]

If we all do that, a conviction is assured.

I understand the need to respect law, but if it clearly is not objective, and is harmful to an individual?

Would you not assess the negative of law breaking (yes it is a negative), against the negative consequences for yourself? Abortion for example? Following your advice would not help a desperate woman. I would stay on the jury, and refuse to find guilty.

If we (potential jurists) all said we were against drug laws, there wouldn't be any.

[Paul's Here 0]

Although I am hampered in a number of ways, and although the government sticks its metaphorical hand into my pocket more than I would like, I remain quite free to pursue my values and to benefit from that pursuit. I can project how much more I could enjoy and achieve in a world governed by laissez-faire capitalism, but for now I will continue to flourish in the freedom of the world that I have now. If happiness is the goal of my life, then I applaud my country for being, with all its faults, the freest country with the best sense of life on Earth, because I am a gloriously happy man.

Congratulations for your achievement!!

If freedom of speech goes the way of the dodo bird, then all bets are off, Until then, I will basically be a law-abiding citizen.

p.s. Just tell the judge you are against drug laws, and you will be off the jury,

If the judge or lawyers ask, I'd tell the truth. But I'm under no obligation to volunteer that information. It's their obligation to find out.

[Paul's Here 0]

If we (potential jurists) all said we were against drug laws, there wouldn't be any.

How does that follow? If all potential jurors were against drug laws, there wouldn't be any political impetus to have those laws passed in the first place. So, the judicial system is already guaranteed a pool of people who think that the law is moral.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If the judge or lawyers ask, I'd tell the truth. But I'm under no obligation to volunteer that information. It's their obligation to find out.

But the implication is far worse than not volunteering information. If you seek to become a juror so as to subvert the law, then that in anarchy. As long as we live in a fundamentally rights-respecting country, we respect the rule of law and abide by them, even though there exist laws with which we disagree. To nullify a jury, to refuse to convict a guilty man because you object to the law of which he is accused, is sheer anarchy.

[Paul's Here 0]

But the implication is far worse than not volunteering information. If you seek to become a juror so as to subvert the law, then that in anarchy. As long as we live in a fundamentally rights-respecting country, we respect the rule of law and abide by them, even though there exist laws with which we disagree. To nullify a jury, to refuse to convict a guilty man because you object to the law of which he is accused, is sheer anarchy.

Two points. Serving on a jury is forced by subpoena, so I'm not seeking to become one. Nor am I seeking to subvert the law. Second, I'm no lawyer, but jury nullification is a legal method as far as I know, and has a long tradition. The jury has the right not only to judge the facts, but to judge the law itself. I don't consider that anarchy. I don't know how any moral person would apply an immoral law just to the facts presented at a trial. It would indeed be anarchy if jurors believed that all laws are immoral, but that is not the situation being discussed here.

Would you really send a doctor to jail for murder for performing an abortion, if the laws ever come down to that?

And one last point. During a trial, lawyers ask questions and those testifying answer them. I would certainly never lie. But if a lawyer doesn't ask a question, there is no way for me to know, objectively, what information I have in my mind that is pertinent to their interests or the trial. It is the lawyers job to find out if I, or any juror, has prejudices that would affect his judgment in the specific case at hand.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Would you really send a doctor to jail for murder for performing an abortion, if the laws ever come down to that?

Again, if you cannot judge in accord with the actual law, then you do not belong on the jury. In this case I wouild openly and honestly state that I disagree with the law and therefore be excused from the jury. The purpose of the jury is to hear the evidence presented and to judge guilt or innocence in conformity to the law. Jury nullification is one of the most heinous cases of anarchist behavior, in that not only does it flaunt rule of law, it subverts the application of law in the case to which it applies.

[Ed from OC 0]

Again, if you cannot judge in accord with the actual law, then you do not belong on the jury. In this case I wouild openly and honestly state that I disagree with the law and therefore be excused from the jury. The purpose of the jury is to hear the evidence presented and to judge guilt or innocence in conformity to the law. Jury nullification is one of the most heinous cases of anarchist behavior, in that not only does it flaunt rule of law, it subverts the application of law in the case to which it applies.

I 100% agree. I was called up for a drug case, announced my disagreement with the laws, and was excused. It is the job of the lawyers and the judge to determine who should be on the jury. The foremost obligation every potential juror has is to be honest.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Second, I'm no lawyer, but jury nullification is a legal method as far as I know, and has a long tradition. The jury has the right not only to judge the facts, but to judge the law itself.

For anyone, a question of facts: In the U. S. or other legal systems, does a jury in a criminal trial have the legal power to "nullify" a law they disagree with? If so, what constitutional or other legal document creates that power?

[Arnold 0]

If I understand what you have written here, it seems to have a "duty" theme behind it. Is it your position that a person has a duty to serve on a jury in a case where they otherwise oppose the law being prosecuted simply because the accused might need your help?

I assume I have been selected for jury. My only duty is to do what is right, nothing self sacrificial. The argument is about what is right.

[Maarten 0]

For anyone, a question of facts: In the U. S. or other legal systems, does a jury in a criminal trial have the legal power to "nullify" a law they disagree with? If so, what constitutional or other legal document creates that power?

Isn't this what happened in the time that alcohol was banned, where juries declared anyone innocent of these crimes because they did not consider it a crime? I realize this does not answer your question, though. But from what I have read about the history of this issue I think it has happened in the past.

[Paul's Here 0]

For anyone, a question of facts: In the U. S. or other legal systems, does a jury in a criminal trial have the legal power to "nullify" a law they disagree with? If so, what constitutional or other legal document creates that power?

Here's a few references:

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

All of the article recognize the right, or if not the right, then at least the ability of juries to nullify laws. The ability of juries to nullify laws is controversial, but it is certainly not illegal. The last reference states

In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:

"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."

[Paul's Here 0]

I 100% agree. I was called up for a drug case, announced my disagreement with the laws, and was excused. It is the job of the lawyers and the judge to determine who should be on the jury. The foremost obligation every potential juror has is to be honest.

Just curious. Were you asked your opinion about the law or did you just stand up in the middle of the room and announce it?

[Paul's Here 0]

Again, if you cannot judge in accord with the actual law, then you do not belong on the jury. In this case I wouild openly and honestly state that I disagree with the law and therefore be excused from the jury. The purpose of the jury is to hear the evidence presented and to judge guilt or innocence in conformity to the law. Jury nullification is one of the most heinous cases of anarchist behavior, in that not only does it flaunt rule of law, it subverts the application of law in the case to which it applies.

So you think it's right for jurors to apply an immoral law? Do you know of any statutes that don't recognize jury nullification?

Suppose you were told that the law requires you to put aside your prejudices and judge only on the facts. And if you don't put aside your prejudices you'd be prosecuted.

Just curious about another point. Suppose you didn't disagree with a law, but after the trial and during deliberations you changed your mind after weighing the evidence and came to the conclusion it would be unjust to convict a man according to a law that you now considered unjust an immoral. What would you do then? You wouldn't be able to just leave during the deliberations.

[Arnold 0]

But you will be asked during jury selection if you object to these drug laws. Would you then lie to get on the jury?

No, not to a direct question, but I would not try to excuse myself simply to avoid a difficult situation. Regardless, I don't doubt I would not be selected.

My intent is not to break laws, but to mitigate harm done by them.

It is too sweeping a statement to say that refusing to obey a particular law, is a disagreement with the acceptance of the rule of law. Some journalists go to jail (accepting that law), for refusing to disclose a source (not accepting that law).Can I ask just how bad a law must be before one refuses "to follow orders," as they say? Just how bad must a law be to your self interest, before it is in your self interest to disobey that law?

Now you may say that such a stand is a violation in principle, of the rule of law, and technically you would be correct. By that standard, it would also mean someone who knowingly took his sports car over the speed limit is an anarchist would it not?

[Paul's Here 0]

Here's a few references:

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification

All of the article recognize the right, or if not the right, then at least the ability of juries to nullify laws. The ability of juries to nullify laws is controversial, but it is certainly not illegal. The last reference states

And one last citation from the last link above

In recent times, the courts have tried to erode the nullification powers of juries. Particular impetus for this was given by the fact that all-white juries in the southern states refused to convict whites of crimes against blacks. As a result there is a practice of judges to incorrectly instruct the jury that the judge determines the law, and that the jury is limited to determining the facts. Such an instruction defeats the purpose of the jury, which is to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the state. Judges or expert witnesses can determine the facts better than juries can. The purpose of the jury is to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the law.

[Maarten 0]

But there is a difference between a normal person breaking the law and someone who is supposed to use the law as guidance in a decision breaking the law. Seeing how juries are part of the judicial system in the function they perform, how is jury nullification different from a judge taking matters in his own hands and deciding that the laws aren't acceptable to him, thus ruling on his own judgment? I would say that last creates a very dangerous situation, and I do not see the essential difference between this situation and juries disregarding the laws they are supposed to base their decisions on.