This article interested me because it talked about Juror Nullification, which I had never heard of before. I am very impressed with this guy, because he openly expressed some very controversial views which could actually get him into legal trouble. In fact, one of his main arguments was that it is ridiculous to arrest people for spreading information about juror nullification. This is when a jury agrees to throw out a case, regardless of whether they think the defendant is guilty. An example the author gave was when people are caught using marijuana- he advised jurors to vote "not guilty" no matter what. This might seem to go against our legal system, but personally I think that this balances things out. I understand why many things are illegal, but if a kid gets caught with marijuana, I think the consequences are often much too harsh, especially since so many people do it. Being able to nullify a case makes it so that we can use our judgement, rather than blindly applying a general law that might seem to harsh for an individual case. Regardless of how often you think juror nullification should be used, it would be hard to convince me that at least spreading information should be illegal. What about the first amendment?
The author appealed to logos, pathos, and ethos in this article. Logos was used primarily in his argument about our civil rights. It doesn't make sense, considering the first amendment, that people should be prohibited from spreading information about juror nullification. Pathos was used a little bit, because civil rights definitely appeal to our patriotism and pride. Also, the marijuana example probably struck many people personally. Who has never met someone at some point in their life who has been in possession of marijuana? The thought of those people's lives being destroyed by a court is certainly upsetting. Ethos is also used because the author has written many other articles and pamphlets on the topic, which he mentions in the article. In the end, I agree that more people should at least know about this; where it should be applied may still be debated, but at least some public knowledge would be a step in the right direction.
Article
Nice job kelly, I agree with the author
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with this. Why should a juror vote not guilty to a person who has used marijuana? I think that is absolutely absurd! The laws are there for a reason! If you don't like it, move to Amsterdam. The law is there to inspire fear in using marijuana, and what kind of message would it send if every time someone smoked they got off easy? You may as well just legalize marijuana. That is absolutely crazy. That is like going to the school committee meeting and asking them to allow smoking it in school because, hell, nothing is going to happen to them when they get in trouble anyway! I think that is completely psychotic. But I agree with the fact that spreading information shouldn't be illegal...they should be able to sue if they wish, however.
ReplyDeleteGood job kelly! I think it is important that the author used pathos, ethos, and logos in his argument because he definitely needed the support from all three styles of writing.
ReplyDeleteI don't really have anything against legalizing marijuana actually. So it's all good.
ReplyDelete