|
|
Annulment by Jury
The almost forgotten principle of Annulment by Jury is the perfect complement to Fuzzy Democracy. It provides a further check & balance to any overreach even of properly constituted representative parliaments. (Parliaments which permit political parties cannot be considered legitimate.)
The essence of Annulment by Jury is plainly and briefly stated by the quote below. After having digested the short pronouncement by U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, please read on.
Go to https://www.democracydefined.org/2trialbyjury.htm for
Annulment-by-jury (or ‘jury nullification’) by Lysander Spooner, U.S. lawyer (barrister-at-law)
who quotes U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946,
“If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.”
“That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”
Judges are a law unto themselves. This must cease.
A judge must be a person of good character, meaning here someone who acknowledges truth and the rule of reason. But he or she must also be a person of reliable judgement, meaning discernment. An idiot of well-meaning character is useless.
Given as things in most jurisdictions are constituted today, a judge who exhibits bad judgement risks at most not being promoted. This must end.
The ultimate check & balance afforded by any electoral democracy worth the name is the option of deselection of public figures, including not only judges but also public prosecutors and some more.
There would seem to be an enormous number of judges of worthless character. De-selecting them in a national vote would overwhelm the citizenry and become burdensome.
Those identified as suspect (which leaves many of mediocre and some of sound character) would, for continued appointment, have to appeal to a popular vote in their area of residence. To this end, information on their judgement calls would have to be available to all.
The turnout is irrelevant. If of a score of voters, a dozen vote for deselection, the judge is deselected. Lucky to retain their pension.
________
There could be a personal invitation to judges to affirm their approval of the above procedure or else to propose an alternative. An alternative might be that they be assessed on their discernment, competence and common decency by professionals from outside the legal sphere.
Those failing to respond, or to respond in a conciliatory manner, should be listed publicly so that all know. It would be wishful thinking to demand their home address and photographs.
________
|
|
