| Pages:
1
2 |
wa gwan
Harmless
Posts: 37
Registered: 15-4-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | The Tryal of Penn and Meade
In the trial, the Recorder of London and the Lord Chief Justice applied enormous pressure on the jurors to get them to pronounce a verdict of "guilty"
on both Penn and Meade for creating an "unlawful assembly" of Quakers at a street meeting which the court said had led to a "tumult." But the jury
persisted in their view that Penn and Meade were not guilty of creating a tumult. In desperation, the Lord Chief Justice required that all the jurors
be kept in the "hole" for three days and nights without food, water or even a chamber pot. Still the jury did not yield, and so they were thrown in
jail again and fined to boot. The result of the jury's steadfastness was that the British Parliament passed a definitive statement which thenceforth
protected the independence of juries, specifying as it did that the practice of fining or imprisoning jurors for verdicts was illegal.
http://www.quaker.org/fqa/types/t01-tryal.html |
Here is an account of the trial from 1670.
The right is rarely used because most people don't know about it although there is anecdotal evidence that UK juries are increasingly acquitting in
medical marijuana cases.
Another trial of note is the Clive Ponting case. Ponting was a civil servant who released details, in breach of the Official Secrets Act, of the sinking of the Argentinian
vessel Belgrano during the Falklands War. The case is relevant though slightly different in that he too had clearly broken the law but his defence was
not political. The jury was instructed by the judge to decide on the law as it stood and to ignore his defense of the publics right to know. They
refused to be browbeaten and he was acquitted.
Juries are summoned at random.
|
|
|
Mr_Benito_Mussolini
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 19-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Juries may be summoned at random in the UK, but more important is the pool that they are selected from. If you have any spent convictions, you won't
be selected, nor will you be selected if you are on any of lists that the authorities keep.
|
|
|
The_deadly_dustbin
Harmless
Posts: 10
Registered: 8-2-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by garage chemist
Of course, the sentence is incredibly harsh.
What's the maximum sentence for something like that in germany? Five or ten years?
[Edited on 1-8-2006 by garage chemist] |
Depending on the judge I'd say 7 to 10, out in 5 (considering that more than 50.000 hits will be taken into account as "nicht geringe Menge" and the
German law does not make a difference between substances that are not "Verkehrsfähig" whether it's Heroin or LSD)
But there's also the case of that guy who got 7 years for supplying his wife with medical MJ. 
[Edited on 2-8-2006 by The_deadly_dustbin]
|
|
|
Sandmeyer
National Hazard
Posts: 784
Registered: 9-1-2005
Location: Internet
Member Is Offline
Mood: abbastanza bene
|
|
Originally posted by Nicodem
| Quote: | | You are a highly intelligent, articulate and talented man. Tragically you have used those talents for illegal purposes. You have strong personal
beliefs that hallucinogenic drugs which alter the human mind are not harmful. The public and governments of civilized modern democracies take a
different view. |
"Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it." 
[Edited on 7-8-2006 by Sandmeyer]
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by len
| Quote: | | You are a highly intelligent, articulate and talented man. Tragically you have used those talents for illegal purposes. You have strong personal
beliefs that hallucinogenic drugs which alter the human mind are not harmful. The public and governments of civilized modern democracies take a
different view. |
At the risk of beeing lynched on this forum, this is not a political statement, it has that superficial appearance, but its import is not. You might
equally well meet a person who considers random murder of people he meets on the street as morally right, what would you say to him? That the
majority of people do not view it that way, moreover the majority of people view prison as the punishment for it. There could be no other basis for
what you say. The alternative is saying, all right you are entitled to your opinion, go live as your internal morals allow. The fact is that laws
are made by society, and to do without them is also, unfortunately, not an option.
If you disagree with society imposing such harsh penalties, thats a different thing to the justification for the sentence. Here I might agree with
you. If its victimless, its not a crime (although not really so since he sold his stuff), but thats an unrelated matter.
[Edited on 30-7-2006 by len] |
I disagree in entirety with the sentence given this person, incidentally I disagree with the fact that when police are prosecuted for manslaughter
they will escape unless they are proved to have intended to kill the person (normally not relevant to manslaughter, whereas intent to kill normally
makes manslaughter murder).
What the judge appears to have been saying in that particular trial (summing up) was that unfortunately his hands were in fact tied by the legislative
authority of the parliament. He 'had' made the substances and irrespective of what use he made of it, if the amounts exceeded those arbitrarily
imposed by the government as demonstrating a trafficable quantity - whether or not there was evidence of trafficking - the judge was compelled to
sentence him as a drug-trafficker.
In a case such as this, the only question which would have been left for the jury is whether or not the prosecution had proved to beyond a reasonable
doubt that he had in fact produced a trafficable quantity of a dangerous drug (as defined in the legislation). The jury had no input insofar as
whether or not they were willing to accept any idealogical argument or even their thoughts on the same. The judge, irrespective of his/her personal
views was similarly given no scope to enter into the idealogical argument, but was compelled to apply the law as it stood.
What the judge was able to do however was to state that in his/her opinion, the person sentenced was quite probably not being imprisoned for their
actions but for their beliefs. The judge appears to have reached this conclusion for much the same reason as Nicodem, the person was prosecuted and
convicted of a crime there is no evidence they actually committed (trafficking), as a byproduct of legislative interference, because they actually
made a substance. The inescapable inference from this is that they were prosecuted predominantly as a means of silencing them.
Nicodem is right on the money on this, this shit really does need to be publicised or many more people will be silenced this same way.
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
In Malaysia or Singapore he would have been condemned to death. In Thailand he might also have been but very likely, his sentence would have been
commuted to life in prison, twenty years would have been a very light sentence here.
The American drug laws and their penalties are draconian for a reason. They are intended to deter anyonefrom oding what this fellow did.
If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
7 g LSD is if I recall somewhere between 70,000 and 140,000 effective doses, if we assume 50-100 micrograms/dose.
Which is a lot of LSD.
So the court and the jury agreed with the prosecutorial argument that there was intent to distribute, and that and the street value (or even the
wholesale value) of the LSD, which would have been arguendo in 6 or 7 figures in dollars, were part of the judge's deliberations when measuring out
justice.
So if anyone wants to second guess the judge and jury, fine, but, my advise is: do not ever put yourself in the position of such a defendant.
Also at risk of repeating myself, what this fellow did was NOT amateur chemistry. No one makes 100,000 hits of acid for amateur chemistry. And since
this was drug manufacture for distribution, rather than amateur chemistry, this is OFF TOPIC in this forum, which is set aside for LEGAL AND SOCIAL
ISSUES OF CONCERN TO AMATEUR CHEMISTS.
It is ABSURD to couch this in terms of "political crime" and for our newly appointed moderator Nicodem to have done so by initiating this thread, IMO
casts serious doubt on his suitability for that position.
Or, Polverone, can someone be a moderator and a pro-druggie activist at the same time?
[Edited on 23-2-2008 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
It is ABSURD to couch this in terms of "political crime" and for our newly appointed moderator Nicodem to have done so by initiating this thread, IMO
casts serious doubt on his suitability for that position.
Or, Polverone, can someone be a moderator and a pro-druggie activist at the same time?
|
Having unconventional and strong opinions is no mark against a member's suitability as a moderator, as long as they're able to respect the rules here.
It was posted 2 years ago in any case. I have full confidence that Nicodem will remain an asset to sciencemadness in his new role as moderator.
This was posted before we had a moratorium on political discussion. To my knowledge Nicodem has respected the moratorium as well as anyone. To
preserve the moratorium I'm now locking the topic.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
