Plea bargains undermine our system of justice.. All jurors must be told of there right to judge both law and fact in all cases.
If it isn't good enough for jury trial than its not worth a plea bargain..
Trial by jury only!!
Now unlock this idea: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6582-4049 UPDATE: They did unlock the idea so you may want to vote it up encase one or the other is deleted.Thanks!!
They wont unlock it so I will revise this one and add it here:
1. All judges must inform the jury of there rights to judge both law and fact.
2. A person on trial must have the right to explain any circumstances of why they should not be found guilty, or why he feels that particular law violates human and civil liberties.
3. A person must have a right to use the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and any religious material he may have to point out to the jury how the particular law for which he is being tried violates civil right,human right,the constitution or the declaration of independence.
4. Only the Jury can determine the facts of a case.
I would recommend we use the Fully informed Jury association as a platform of jurors rights.
Why Is This Idea Important?
Because justice is important!! And a jurors rights are of the utmost importance. Today Judges will tell jurors they must prescribe to the law as he has explained it.This is wrong!! Jurors must be able to judge both the law and the facts of a case in order for our system of justice to work.
Quotations and Comments on Fully Informed Juries
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
JOHN LOCKE (Second Treatise of Government): "Yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them....And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject."
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): "The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."
Comments (7)
can anyone explain why this idea posted but not this one?
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6582-4049
My original idea...
Moderation Policy
This online dialogue allows you the opportunity to fill out custom text fields, which are publicly visible. The site therefore operates a moderation policy to ensure that your comments are appropriate and not harmful to others. Comments which include any of the following may be deleted:
* Threats or incitements to violence
* Obscenity
* Duplicate posts
* Posts revealing your own or others' sensitive/personal information (e.g., Social Security numbers)
* Information posted in violation of law, including libel, condoning or encouraging illegal activity, revealing classified information, or comments which might affect the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings
Well i guess this will be deleted because it would effect the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings.. WTF
Wow!! they have posted all my ideas or rants about the site as some of them may be!!!!
Thanks Mods!!!!
I agree that ultimately, this would be a great idea...a bit idealistic, though.
Before implementing this idea, we would have to get rid of all the crazy prosecutors. They over charge cases to compensate for the "bargaining process". They over charge cases with no merit, or evidence, for statistics and grant funds.
Before implementing this idea, we would also have to educate every single potential jurror regarding every possible scenario, law, loophole, and such, in a non-bias way, in order for the accused to have a fair trial.
When a person is accused, they are faced with three basic choices, 1. have faith in the "system" and put their future in the hands of a jury which may not care, or is simply uneducated at best... Or 2. plea out with the prosecutor, who has the MOST control in a trial, Or, 3. wing in with a judge in a bench trial, and hope that the judge is educated and fair.
I fear that considering all of this info. I would be more inclined to plea, out of fear... It takes strong character and lots of support for someone to say, "I did not do what you say I did, and you are not going to intimidate me with the threat of prision, an uneducated jury,crazy prosecutors, overworked P.D.'s, politically motivated judges, etc...
regardless of weather or not this is a fair system, it is what it is, and to take away the option of a plea, would have to be further down on the list of steps to overhaul our system of justice...in order to prevent our efforts from negatively effecting the accused by taking away options. Lets face it, loopholes and pleas, are sometimes the only things the innocent can count on.
But not with a fully informed jury.As I said before plea bargains undermine our system of justice.If every case had to be tried before a jury as our Constitution clearly states anyways there wouldn't be all these non violent junk laws on the books because the courts could never handle them. "All persons accused of a crime shall have the right to a plea bargain" No thanks I'll take the Jury Trial thanks...I only need one person to say not guilty and jury will be hing...If I take a plea bargain the Judge and the D.A. decide my fate period...That don't sound like a bargain to me!!!
I agree.
But...
How do we find an informed jury? Every person in the usa, is not as informed as you are. A hung jury only means that they do the trial over again with a new jury. I have found that the odds are, that you can go through 4 jury groupings and still maybe only find 1 informed jurror who actually gives a crap about what is going on.
In the end I agree with what you are saying. In a utopian world, we would not need to fall back on the plea bargain process. But as it stands, we have prosecutors who over charge because they know that this is how the system works. A total revamp of the system is what is needed, but we cant start the process by taking away the only option for some who are accused.
The Jurors would be informed of there rights at the beginning of each trial.. Read my idea again!!
Do I need to Revise my idea? If so what would you suggest? we can make this work..All jurors used to be informed of there rights as jurors but today a judge is not forced to tell the jurors there rights and thats the problem.Please if you have something that can make this idea better,by all means share it with me!!!