Our Founding Fathers created our government of three co-equal branches: the Legislative branch (Congress) to create the laws of the country, the Judicial branch to interpret the laws, and the Executive branch to enforce the laws. The President of the United States is therefore the Chief Enforcer of the laws of the United States. What do you do when the Chief Enforcer of the laws refuses to enforce the laws “We must look forward, not backward” or, far worse, refuses to enforce the laws only for a tiny percentage, the favored few, but rigorously enforces the laws against the average citizen? There have been zero convictions of rich and powerful criminals in a country that has the highest incarceration rates in the world.
It is this injustice that has spawned the Occupy movement, as average people throughout the country have stood up and protested. The Occupy movement has had good success. They have forced coverage of an issue that the traditional media had preferred to avoid, though that coverage has too often been dismissive. The efforts by the government to quash the Occupy movement has shown us how limited and fragile our liberties are. More surprisingly, and frighteningly, we discovered a militaristic obedience to the State among some citizens, who reacted to Americans exercising the rights with uncalled-for violence. We have seen the videos of police using pepper spray or batons on Americans who are protesting, among other things, Wall Street’s pillaging of police pensions!
So what’s next? What can be done when the power of government is arrayed against you? I propose we turn the power of government around, and use it as the vehicle of our message. I propose we Occupy the Justice System.
We should use the Jury System to voice our discontent. We have a right to a trial by jury, and if the jury were to take the lead of the Chief Enforcer of the United States and decide that we need to look forward, not backward when it comes to petty crimes of average people, then we will have equality under the law, and an unsustainable legal system. For if average Americans are not penalized for non-violent crimes such as speeding tickets, expired licenses, and parking tickets, then that loss of revenue would quickly add up. If a jury were to decide that possession of a small amount of marijuana should go unpunished, then they could state that, yes, we think a law may have been broken, but we need to look forward, not backward. And here’s the powerful part. Almost all juries require unanimous consent for a guilty verdict. It would only take one Occupier on the jury to either secure a “not-guilty” verdict or to deadlock the jury and force a new trial.
I propose that we Occupy the Justice System for the following crimes: parking tickets, expired license fines, possession of small quantities of marijuana, and those who provide and use medical marijuana. We can add to it later to increase the pressure if need be.
The President’s “look forward not backward” is inherently destructive. By Occupying the Justice System we will force a reversal of this fatally-flawed political decision and we should be able to bring justice to bear on the criminals on Wall Street who have for too long acted as if laws are only for the commoners. Jay Gould once famously scoffed, “I can hire half of the working class to kill the other half.” Doesn’t that seem too close a description to our current jury system?
Joe Mullany is the author of ‘In the Shadow of Idols’, a political spy thriller imbued with the hidden effects of privatization and the security state on our individual liberties.




20 Comments

This seems do-able. They can’t throw everybody off the jury.
What state are you in? Here in California, the crimes you name are pretty much a whole separate category called “infraction” for which juries are no longer possible (thanks Gov. Reagan!). Providers, I don’t know exactly where that’s at now. State law conflicts with federal law. Here’s what happened a few years ago when a man who had been deputized by the city of Oakland to provide medical marijuana was charged in federal court, and the jury was not allowed to know of the state law aspect: Pot jury rebellion
At the end of the series, the creators of the Wire asked for citizens to engage in acts of jury nullification against the drug war. This is not a new idea, but it’s a good one. The question is how do we get the word out there?
I’m in Texas now, and the idea percolated in my head when I served on a jury about what to do with a person who lied to a police officer about his name to avoid being arrested for outstanding fines unpaid.
It struck me then as too bad that we were charging this guy 1000 fine for lying when we’re out trillions to fraudsters who remained unpunished.
I believe that the system is broken along the way before the jury trial stage. Once something ever gets to a jury, the trial is anything but a venue for truth, it seems.
I often fantasize about this: Every single person who is ever arrested or cited for anything whatsoever should demand a jury trial. The coerced-guilty-plea railroad would grind to a halt.
Mr, Doe, I see you ran a stop sign. How do you plead?
Not guilty your honor. I would like a jury trisl please.
Hi J.E., I left a long, researched comment for you here earlier (hours ago) but it seems to be stuck in moderation. I wonder what’s up with that, it was a decent comment.
Here’s another thought for you, as I step away. Your photo. Occupy. Makes me think of this, from V for Vendetta, V’s overture to Madame Justice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlU1HLkdmNk
Nice diary, best wishes.
trisl should read trial
And still my comment that I spent all that effort to write and source sits awaiting moderation. Would appreciate a moderator’s attention or explanation of what the problem is.
Well, no word from a moderator, and while I can still see my comment stuck in moderation, I will try breaking it up and throwing it at the wall again and see what sticks.
Starting here:
continuing
continuing
continuing
continuing
continuing
continuing
continuing
finishing
Wow! You clearly have put a great deal of thought into it, and I now see how this could be a trap – yes you have a trial by jury, but the rules are bent so that the juries have no real power. This is very interesting and I wonder if there are books or experts who can talk to this?
There’s an organization called FIJA, Fully Informed Jurors Association I think — and I’m sure I can trace a lot of what I’ve learned to them, though it was my experience in amazingly f**ked up traffic court and then later in jury selection that gave me the impetus to start really looking and thinking. How did things get so stupid? Why can’t we fix it? Also if you remember the case of the retired professor Julian Heicklen who got arrested for leafleting people outside a New York courthouse last year — he was charged with jury tampering I believe, and the leaflets he was passing out were FIJA leaflets. The New York Times covered it (one of the leaflets is shown there), and lawyer/historian Scott Horton at Harper’s supported Heicklen with some history. I learned stuff there I didn’t know, like that Jefferson just before he died in 1824 was complaining about how new lawyers were being taught wrong about juries, didn’t understand. Before I read that I could point to Sparf in 1895, but apparently the seeds were already growing in 1824, which is why I’m now wondering about Marbury. I wish Horton would wonder too, he understands more than I do. Heicklen’s case was finally dismissed last month. He won, though not on the grounds that omg jury nullification was constitutional, just that he hadn’t tried to influence a sitting juror to vote a specific way in a current case.
I really think this is stuff Occupy needs to think about. Why are people — 99% of us — so disconnected from our own self-governance? We vote for hypotheticals, like Friedman said above, but we not on the real application of law in real life. We’re just passengers and audience now, pay no attention to what’s going on behind the curtain. But that’s not the way it was supposed to be, and in fact nobody rewrote the Constitution, the court on its own just rewrote the juror’s job description, without any Constitutional amendment or legislation or public debate or voting. They just pulled it out of their butts. So redefine it again. I’d say the same thing about Citizen’s United. It’s stupid on its face and totally a judicial concoction.
I just want to add one thought, about the infraction category of crime that allows punishment/”justice” to be determined by government without a jury. That’s why I was sorry to see marijuana moved into that category in California. Because now juries can’t overturn it like they did Prohibition, and it’s a cash cow for government, which needs the money and will only milk it, especially in tax-strapped California. Also, that makes it pervasively bad and tolerable, a failing we’re all likely to get snagged on some time, like a parking or traffic ticket, just pay the fine and move on. Which means that’s how most of us will learn how liberty and justice for all works, as kabuki, stripped of constitutional due processes, move on. Traffic court is where we go to be helpless and without representation, where the law itself is incomprehensible fine print understood by no one really, and where the judge doubles as the prosecutor, all while we pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands.