A Case for Jury Nullification...

[MiM]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

It's not the wanking that's the problem, it's when, where and why he was doing it that's the problem, and that is a MAJOR problem, particularly in light of the evident history of sexual excess of the "victim" in the past. If he wants to imagine the children next door and wank so long and hard his cock bleeds, gets infected and falls off, that's his right, so long as he does it in the privacy of his home. Criminal trespass, invasion of privacy, sexual exploitation of a child and public indecency all point to a person with a severe sexual psychopathy who is very likely actively dangerous to others, and therefore needs to be persuaded not to escalate his behavior.

...or something.

Oh, so "sexual excess" (as seen by the neighbours) in your own home, is something illegal, or something that should be seen as incriminating... I thought this forum was Rationalia, not Catliccia.

[Warren Dew]

Would that it were truly a random selection though. A computer should randomly select 12 voting-age adults from the county voting registry and those 12 people would serve. No voir dire, no challenges, no changes. Completely random.

Out of curiousity, what is your objection to voir dire? It strikes me that it might reduce the probability of getting a highly biased jury.

[Seth]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

It's not the wanking that's the problem, it's when, where and why he was doing it that's the problem, and that is a MAJOR problem, particularly in light of the evident history of sexual excess of the "victim" in the past. If he wants to imagine the children next door and wank so long and hard his cock bleeds, gets infected and falls off, that's his right, so long as he does it in the privacy of his home. Criminal trespass, invasion of privacy, sexual exploitation of a child and public indecency all point to a person with a severe sexual psychopathy who is very likely actively dangerous to others, and therefore needs to be persuaded not to escalate his behavior.

...or something.

Oh, so "sexual excess" (as seen by the neighbours) in your own home, is something illegal, or something that should be seen as incriminating... I thought this forum was Rationalia, not Catliccia.

Nothing wrong with sex parties in one's home so long as it remains in the home and doesn't create a public nuisance, which this person's activities appear to have done, what with used condoms laying about and such. But the most telling is the escalation from private sexual behavior to public perversion. That's a huge step, and an important one, because it demonstrates a deteriorating sense of sexual control that indicates a psychopathology that might well become physically dangerous to children in the neighborhood.

There's a difference between the "perv" who sits at home and fantasizes about having sex with young children and a "perve" who takes the significant step of exteriorizing that sexual attraction by lurking about naked while peeping and wanking. The obvious next step in that psychopathology is an actual physical attack on a child.

[MiM]

I'm not saying that the guy could not have become dangerous, only that he did not present a clear and present danger. Especially not once he started running away. The guy who beat however, put the wanker in obvious danger of life.

[Seth]

Would that it were truly a random selection though. A computer should randomly select 12 voting-age adults from the county voting registry and those 12 people would serve. No voir dire, no challenges, no changes. Completely random.

Out of curiousity, what is your objection to voir dire? It strikes me that it might reduce the probability of getting a highly biased jury.

Because it's used to essentially weed-out anyone intelligent enough to make good arguments and decisions during deliberations. It's used by both sides to try to manipulate the jury in it's own favor.

When the Constitution says "peers" in the context of the US (which has no titled nobility) it means "members of your community." This should include the potential for members of the community who KNOW YOU and are aware of your character and behavior. It shouldn't mean "clueless morons who never watch the news and have no idea what the law is or what their authority is."

In particular, I object to the exclusion of "Nullificationists" from juries. In most cases the judge won't even count it against one or the other sides, he'll just dismiss them out of hand simply because they will not be tractable and gullible enough to suit the court or the lawyers, who want to be able to absolutely control the message and information the jury sees and is allowed to consider.

Jurors ought to be allowed to use whatever knowledge and judgment they bring to the trial in coming to a decision, not just what the lawyers and judges want them to hear.

[Seth]

I'm not saying that the guy could not have become dangerous, only that he did not present a clear and present danger. Especially not once he started running away. The guy who beat however, put the wanker in obvious danger of life.

I disagree. His behavior was a clear and present danger, and his flight was an attempt to escape so he could continue, and perhaps escalate that behavior.

Nor do I particularly care that a naked peeping pedophile wanker's health was jeopardized. Perhaps if he'd gotten the shit beat out of him the first couple of times he did such things he'd have learned some self-control. However, the point here is that the father was arrested and charged, which was the law, but what I'm saying is that his jury can consider other things, like the natural and understandable outrage of a father placed in an intolerable position, in determining whether he's guilty of a crime.

That's appropriate. He dispensed some "street justice," which cops do all the time, and he got caught at it, which cops almost never are, and he's facing a jury.

It's up to the jury to decide if his conduct was excusable or not. I happen to think it is in this specific case. I'd like to think that if I beat the crap out of someone and had a good reason for doing so, a jury would look at that reason and decide to agree with me that my conduct was inappropriate but not criminal.

After all, the father is still facing a civil suit.

[laklak]

Mr. Scummy Dude has a history of advertising sex parties on the internet, there are used condoms lying in the street, he's known as "the nudist" by the neighbors, he's asking underage kids to come to his parties, and now he's starkers in my yard, hiding in my bushes and flogging his dolphin while staring at my prepubescent daughter? I applaud the father's self-restraint, because I'd have been outside with a 12 gauge before he got his nut. The very BEST he could hope for is a stint in intensive care. His most likely future would be a long nap out in the Gulf, inside an old oil drum full of concrete.

[piscator]

What is it with you guys, thinking that beating a guy shitless is a smaller offence than wanking in a tree

The guy's peering in to your home, jacking off at your 9-year old. You just let it go.
A few years later, the same guy grabs your daughter's boob in an elevator, she's been violated and may carry emotional scars for life. Right?

[MiM]

Mr. Scummy Dude has a history of advertising sex parties on the internet, there are used condoms lying in the street, he's known as "the nudist" by the neighbors, he's asking underage kids to come to his parties, and now he's starkers in my yard, hiding in my bushes and flogging his dolphin while staring at my prepubescent daughter? I applaud the father's self-restraint, because I'd have been outside with a 12 gauge before he got his nut. The very BEST he could hope for is a stint in intensive care. His most likely future would be a long nap out in the Gulf, inside an old oil drum full of concrete.

If sex parties and condoms are such a big deal, then I really hope the neighbourhood isn't watching on what people are posting here. Underage kids would be a lot worse, but there is no evidence (in the OP) that there had been any previously involved, and of course it's really creepy to see a naked guy stalking in your yard.

But still not a good reason to use potentially lethal force against someone that is already running away,

[DaveD]

How can we know that Maho was guilty of what he was accused of? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that his prudish neighbours, scandalised by his sex parties, decided to impart some rough "justice", dragged him from his home, and beat the shit out of him.
I don't think that's likely, but it's possible, and the vigilantism might have clouded the case.

[laklak]

Could be, I'm approaching it from the perspective of finding him in the bushes wanking. I have no problem with whatever anyone does in the privacy of their own home, as long as it is with consenting adults. Bringing it outside is another thing, particularly if that is just outside my daughter's window.

[Seth]

How can we know that Maho was guilty of what he was accused of? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that his prudish neighbours, scandalised by his sex parties, decided to impart some rough "justice", dragged him from his home, and beat the shit out of him.
I don't think that's likely, but it's possible, and the vigilantism might have clouded the case.

Well, that's what the trial is for don't you see? I didn't say he shouldn't face trial, I merely said that given the facts I've seen in the news (admittedly not the whole story) I would, as a juror, vote to acquit him under the jury nullification authority.

If it turns out, after investigation and presentation of evidence at trial that in fact the dad snuck into the perv's house, dragged him naked out of bed to his yard and then beat the shit out of him to make it look like what he claims it was, then he should go to jail of course.

I'm merely saying that sometimes a jury of one's peers may make a reasonable and appropriate judgment of innocence when a conviction would create a miscarriage of justice...like some 90 year old husband helping his sick, 90 year old wife commit suicide. Is it a crime? Yes, in most places. Should we incarcerate him for it? Absolutely not...if at trial it's clear it was a merciful act to assist the voluntary suicide of his spouse.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

At the risk of causing a derail - Perhaps juries are too small these days to accurately reflect a general concensus of what the public would consider a fair verdict? How many-fold has the population incresed since the inception of this system? How much more diverse is society?
Just a thought...

[Warren Dew]

I'm merely saying that sometimes a jury of one's peers may make a reasonable and appropriate judgment of innocence when a conviction would create a miscarriage of justice...like some 90 year old husband helping his sick, 90 year old wife commit suicide. Is it a crime? Yes, in most places. Should we incarcerate him for it? Absolutely not...if at trial it's clear it was a merciful act to assist the voluntary suicide of his spouse.

That's a much better example, in my opinion.

[JimC]

I'm merely saying that sometimes a jury of one's peers may make a reasonable and appropriate judgment of innocence when a conviction would create a miscarriage of justice...like some 90 year old husband helping his sick, 90 year old wife commit suicide. Is it a crime? Yes, in most places. Should we incarcerate him for it? Absolutely not...if at trial it's clear it was a merciful act to assist the voluntary suicide of his spouse.

That's a much better example, in my opinion.

Yes.

The OP example is not cut and dried. There would be a good chance of a guilty verdict, but with a lenient or suspended sentence to reflect the circumstances.

In fact, suspended would be sensible, with the judge issuing a stern warning about the consequences of a later incident of violent rage...