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: 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?