If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Isthmus / The Daily Page)   Some words are so vile, so despicable, that they cannot be uttered in a courtroom in Wisconsin   (isthmus.com) divider line 25
    More: Asinine, Vernon Hershberger, Wisconsin, Life of Brian, stoned to death  
•       •       •

11828 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2013 at 8:53 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-23 08:58:32 AM
4 votes:
I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.
2013-05-23 09:17:40 AM
3 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.


Yes, and that's exactly the point.  This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience.  What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"
This is not justice.  The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.  And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable.  Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.
2013-05-23 09:03:20 AM
3 votes:

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.
2013-05-23 09:23:46 AM
2 votes:
I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.

On the other hand, I find an issue that the court is deliberately avoiding may be a mere evidence issue. For example, I juried in a trial where a father was accused of sneaking into his 17 year old daughter's room and forcing her to fellate him. This was a case of testimony alone. Some jurists found that it was odd that he would do this only 3 or 4 times in her life and not regularly. I pointed out that nobody, NOBODY had said that he never did that before, and nobody ever asked her about any experience prior to that first time.  It's probable that he HAD done it before and if he had, if the date and time could not be established with specificity, they would be prohibited from mentioning it.  That guy got off because the jury argued back and forth about how a heavy person could restrain someone in such a position- totally misunderstanding the nature of sexual abuse because they believed it to be physically forceful rape.  So that was a situation where the prosecution could not mention things and the defense didn't want to open the door to it.

I think every American, and every citizen of a country with a double jeopardy law should be aware of the de facto principle of jury nullification- that you can find someone not guilty just because you don't believe that it's appropriate that they be punished or prosecuted, due to the circumstances under which the law was broken, the propriety of the law being enforced, or the method by which is is being enforced, including the potential sentence that could be imposed.
2013-05-23 09:08:56 AM
2 votes:
Belgium.
2013-05-23 09:07:23 AM
2 votes:

ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.


It seems like people in the field of law sometimes forget that juries were implemented to ensure that laws were being applied in a way that was acceptable to the citizens. The whole point of a jury being involved was to try to make sure the spirit of law was followed rather than letter. Yet, prosecutors and judges seem to be under the impression that it is just supposed to be 12 random people who decide if the actions strictly disagreed with a particular paragraph in a book. If that was the case, then surely the lawyers and judges would be far more qualified for it and have no need of juries.
2013-05-23 09:03:13 AM
2 votes:
2013-05-23 02:02:32 PM
1 votes:

null: Belgium.


Please save that sort of filth for serious screenplays.
2013-05-23 10:05:09 AM
1 votes:

farkingfun: thurstonxhowell: Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.

From the Article:
The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed.

If he were selling milk to a processing plant (for which licences can be obtained) without a license the charge would be appropriate.  It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.


It's almost like they were deliberately and intentionally making it illegal to sell raw milk to consumers, unless those consumers are processing plants.  It almost seems like the whole point of the requiring licensing and then not providing an option to provide your potential death milk to consumers was to prevent you from getting your bacteria laden milk into stores and markets.

We COULD just nuke everything, and not deal with pasteurizing OR raw milk, but people got brain washed with movies about giant ants in the 50s, and we care more about our hysteria than people dying from untreated food.
2013-05-23 09:57:50 AM
1 votes:

Russ1642: Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.


I have a better idea: instead of misrepresenting my position on the manner, let's go with what I actually think. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and allow the sale of both pasteurized and raw milk, and let the public make its own decisions about nutrition.

Obviously, until there's enough data on the subject, you're going to want to err on the side of caution in re: schools and hospitals and such. But this isn't 1918, we're not bringing milk to town in a Model T anymore. Let's let people have a choice in the manner.

And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.
2013-05-23 09:43:16 AM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: et us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of:
Unlawfulkillingof a humanby another humanwith intent to do so


Sigh - stupid failure to preview.

Let us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of

1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. of a human
4. by another human
5. with intent to do so

FTFM
2013-05-23 09:34:12 AM
1 votes:
Does anyone know if the pasteurization laws were put into place before refrigeration became common in households?
2013-05-23 09:33:05 AM
1 votes:

Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?


So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state.  "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you".  If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid.  And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people.  No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny.  You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7
2013-05-23 09:31:19 AM
1 votes:

ReverendJasen: This is not justice. The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.


To be honest, courts tend to avoid trying to do "justice" as that is a pretty subjective and sticky question, and its pretty rare to get two people to agree when it has been done.  Doing law is hard enough.
2013-05-23 09:29:44 AM
1 votes:

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


ChaoticLimbs: I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.


It's a Cardassian trial.  The verdict and the sentence have already been determined; the trial is just to show the people that the accused is guilty and understands what he did wrong.
2013-05-23 09:18:11 AM
1 votes:

Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?


I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.
2013-05-23 09:15:28 AM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

That's why



Mhmm. I realize that they are trying to avoid a big debate on how dangerous raw milk is and such, but surely they could put a stop to that on an individual basis during the trial, rather than by issuing a blanket ban that also blocks the introduction of details that could be important.

Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to think it is much harder to confuse or mislead the average person than most people think.
2013-05-23 09:08:48 AM
1 votes:

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

That's why

/*most states have similar analogues
2013-05-23 09:07:49 AM
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.


However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......
2013-05-23 09:06:41 AM
1 votes:
How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?
2013-05-23 09:05:05 AM
1 votes:
It's gotta be "colored oleo"....

/Lawn, off, get.

//For a short time after the colored (oleo)margarine ban was lifted, margarine served in restaurants had to be in a triangular pat instead of the square pat like butter.

//I think the current PC term is "margarine of color".
2013-05-23 09:04:54 AM
1 votes:

ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.


It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.
2013-05-23 09:00:12 AM
1 votes:
At least no one boiled a goat in its mother's raw milk.
2013-05-23 08:59:59 AM
1 votes:

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.
2013-05-23 08:59:14 AM
1 votes:
 Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report