SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the smoking-stopped-son's-seizures-so-son-siezed dept.
They Let Their 15-Year-Old Son Smoke Pot to Stop His Seizures. Georgia Took Him Away. (archive)
The pharmaceuticals weren't working. The 15-year-old boy was having several seizures per day, and his parents were concerned his life was in danger. So Suzeanna and Matthew Brill, of Macon, Ga., decided in February to let their son try smoking marijuana — and his seizures stopped for 71 days, they say.
The Brills' decision led to the boy, David, being taken away from his parents, who face possible fines and jail time after being charged with reckless conduct for giving him the drug. David has now been in a group home for 30 days, and his seizures have returned. He is separated from the service dog that sniffed out his seizures, and he is able to communicate with his parents only during short visitations and phone calls.
They maintain they made the right decision for their son's health, despite their current predicament. "Even with the ramifications with the law, I don't care," said Mr. Brill, his stepfather. "For 71 days he was able to ride a bike, go play, lift weights. We were able to achieve that with David medicated not from Big Pharma, but David medicated with marijuana."
The Brill parents were jailed on April 20, and posted bond on April 25.
Since The New York Times published the article, Twiggs County Sheriff Darren Mitchum has received media attention and threatening phone calls, one of which he played back for reporters at a press conference.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AssCork on Friday June 01 2018, @08:08PM (23 children)
Someone needs to inform every potential juror in Georgia about "Jury Nullification" because this will undoubtedly go to trial if the media doesn't start bleating about this hard. [wikipedia.org]
(emphasis mine)
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @08:30PM (1 child)
And keep punting it until they get a jury that will vote in their favor.
America defined by rule of law is long past dead, if it ever was in the first place.
(Score: 2) by AssCork on Monday June 04 2018, @08:27PM
Actually, they typically don't, and when someone is acquitted, there's that whole "double jeopardy" thing that prevents another trial (unless new evidence is introduced)
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 01 2018, @08:46PM (1 child)
Isn't the plaintiff able to appeal a "Not Liable" verdict in _civil_ court?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Friday June 01 2018, @10:24PM
Well yes and no. The prohibition on double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's always practically possible to appeal civil losses, but typically you can.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @09:41PM (9 children)
Having gone through Jury selection several times, I can attest that anyone who even mentions "jury nullification" or indicates they have heard of it, will be removed from the jury pool. It won't count against either side's "voir dire" challenge counts either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday June 01 2018, @09:48PM (7 children)
Once you're seated on the jury you have not just a right but a solemn obligation to judge the case and render a verdict consistent with justice. No matter what anyone else says.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday June 01 2018, @10:23PM (6 children)
The last time I was a prospective juror, the judge asked us to take an oath that we would "judge only the facts, not the law itself or the parties to the trial", before we were even asked a question.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:25PM (1 child)
That advice may have been misleading or contrary to the law.
(Score: 3, Funny) by sjames on Friday June 01 2018, @10:29PM
I believe so, but nevertheless, we were asked to swear to that. When I said I could not conscionably do so, the judge engaged me in a brief discussion about the ethics of my position, likely to satisfy herself that I was sincere and not just trying to get off of jury duty, then excused me.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday June 01 2018, @10:29PM (3 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:01AM (2 children)
The question comes down to "what is a just verdict". Arguing necessity might be a better route, if they're decent people, they'll acquit without realizing that they're performing jury nullification.
This is how abortion became legal here in Canada, Dr Henry Morgentaler kept getting arrested for performing illegal abortions, he kept arguing necessity, juries kept acquitting, by the third time only taking an hour to deliver the verdict. Incidentally it also led to bans on double jeopardy (first as a law, known as Morgentaler Amendment to the Criminal Code. and then as a right) as the nation got pissed off when the crown appealed and overturned the acquittal. Eventually the Supreme Court struck down the abortion laws due to our right to "security of person"
Whether the same thing could happen in America with abortion is questionable as so many Americans would judge the justice of abortion differently. Might be the same with marijuana.
As an aside, medical marijuana also became legal here based on our right to security of person and the obviousness of the government not being able to ban a medicine or otherwise screw with a persons health.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler#Quebec [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person#Canada [wikipedia.org]
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Saturday June 02 2018, @02:04PM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:43PM
Yes, I was going to mention that case in response to, IIRC, a different comment of yours.
It's interesting how the common law has evolved.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Friday June 01 2018, @11:52PM
Jury nullification is always a thought in the back of my head when called. I don't mention it (or give anything but routine non-controversial answers to anything) but it doesn't really matter, I'm not a preferred juror demographic and don't seem to ever make it to a jury. Makes me a little sad.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2018, @10:43PM (6 children)
Jury nullification isn't a legal activity, it's a byproduct of jurors having the right to vote however they like. And it totally breaks democracies when you have jurors voting for reasons other than their estimation of whether or not the prosecution made it's case.
It also deprives the appellate courts of their ability to set new precedence that prevents cases from going to trial in the first place.
(Score: 3, Touché) by FakeBeldin on Friday June 01 2018, @11:13PM (4 children)
This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin - and I am not a US citizen.
Wrong, it is legal. And there is a proud tradition of it in the USA, starting already in colonial times (against maritime law), continuing into slavery times (against escaped slaves law) and prohibition times (against alcohol laws).
Well, if that was not the case, we would have little need of jurors, now would we?
The whole premise of a jury system is that the jury is allowed to vote however it likes. If that is violated, you don't have a jury system, you have a system in which members of the public are occasionally press-ganged into handing out unpopular verdicts.
Democracies that are broken by voting freely?
"You use that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @12:35AM
I think that might be another person who makes the mistake of thinking that our legal system is supposed to catch every person who breaks the law (whether the law is unjust or not), and since jury nullification can threaten that, they are against it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:32AM (2 children)
I think you forgot one of the most prevalent uses of jury nullification: letting white defendants get away with attacking (including killing) black defendants, largely in southern states.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:33AM
See here. [soylentnews.org] Our legal system is not designed to convict every bad person or lawbreaker. That some bad people get away is unfortunate, but it is no argument against jury nullification.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @08:54PM
If you're in a state where most people think that white people should get away with killing black people then that's what you'd tend to get. Whether the people deciding are the judges or the jury.
The juries are representative of the people. So you're not going to get much better but the idea is that you won't get much worse. It's a check and balance against laws and judges.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:37AM
The crown (or the state) brings a case. They want to throw you in prison, execute you, whatever. They're ready to go. They don't need any convincing, they don't want to see the exculpatory evidence, they're sure you're guilty they want to deal with you and concentrate on the next case.
The law puts in a jury *precisely* to prevent the agents of the crown, or the state, from doing this to you unjustly. It places a high bar before the exercise of the crown's authority. Yes, they can kill you, imprison you, etc. but ONLY after 12 of your peers have heard the case and AGREED that you are guilty and punishment is just.
The jurors have not only the right but the duty to vote their conscience, regardless of what the law or the judge or any of the attorney's tell them. That's their entire role in the system. They aren't there primarily to judge the fine points of law, or the facts of the case, either of which the judge is certainly more qualified to do (as Europeans can tell you.) They are there to provide a check on the state power, an opportunity for the populace to veto the crown prosecutor and set you free when you're prosecuted unjustly. Without the ability to do that there would be no point whatsoever in having a jury rather than just a judge.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday June 02 2018, @02:43AM (1 child)
you can get thrown in jail for TELLING people (inside a court) about JN.
the legal assholes all HATE the concept of JN. a lawyer friend of mine argued quite loudly that 'we normals are not qualified to judge the law'.
(I stopped talking to her very shortly after that comment.)
the legal people want to be able to fuck us over and get away with it. cops already can; the legal eagles want that, too.
too much power in the hands of We The People(tm) are scary to those who wish to control us.
thing is: you WILL rot in jail is you inform people of this, while inside a court.
(I want to get off this planet, some days. damn. there are many days I'm ashamed to be from this damned planet.)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:41AM
Just build a place to provide a small group of people a better tomorrow. Maybe if it provides compelling mindshare you can get a larger number of people interested in the principles of it. But if you do, don't let too many of them become part of the old system, before requiring them to start a similiar but new community, so that they won't helpfully turn you back into the shitty old one you were trying your best not to emulate.