If he meant " to seriously overburden our legal system" that our jails are full to overflowing with non violent people, then he is correct.

Can't add anything to what Mike and J said.

When will they ever learn.

J Carlton was right both times.

E Archer is exactly correct. The war on drugs is a sham. As to helorat's observation as to costs to taxpayers footing the bill for drug abuse, we are spending millions to jail offenders most of which are in prisons for victimless crimes.

We still have vestiges of puritanism left in this country. We haven't burned any witches lately but we still want people to behave and do like we do. The war on drugs is a perfect example and, of course, doesn't keep people from doing drugs. It does , however, cause havoc in our streets, corrupt law enforcement agencies, and fill our jails to overflowing while costing millions.

The FDA is now planning to make transfats illegal. The better to save us from ourselves. The nannies in Washington know best and will use force in order to make us healthier.

E Archer, view Burke's quote from yesterdays Liberty Quotes and see my reply to your comment.

E Archer spelled it out and I love his first sentence. You are truly screwed if you get involved in the "judicial system".

E Archer is correct.

Beverly hills, not all lawyers are corrupt but 95% give the others a bad name. However, the idea of "socializing" them is nuts. And of your 7 words, 2 of them are misspelled.

The Congress is about 95% lawyers and this may explain our current mess. How about a bunch that has never made a payroll, or even had a real job, setting minimum wages and telling people how to run their businesses.

As is said, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. And they can get as many grand juries as necessary to get an indictment.

And congress makes new laws daily, scary.

J and Archer said it very well indeed.

I think watchman is way too loquacious and verbose. And a fundamentalist to boot.

If a juror should explain to the other jurors the concept of Jury Nullification Could the judge declare it to be jury misconduct ? Well of course he could since the judge, in a court room, is slightly above God, and they know it.

The jury is the final say so in criminal cases as to law and fact. This needs to be pointed out to jurors but no judge will ever do it.

Our government is fast "degenerating into tyranny".

Jury nullification is indeed "a safeguard against the government".

Maybe judges should mention this when charging the jury.

Maybe they still have a constitution in Indiana, too bad we don't have one in the USA. Oh, we do have one, it's just that the politicians in congress ignore and trample on it.

Jury nullification is a wonderful tool and should be used more often. Too bad that jurors never hear of it.

No judge will ever tell a jury that they should judge the law as well as the facts in the case. In order to get a conviction, many prosecuting attorneys will cover up facts that do not support their case.

Watchman, tell that to judges who rule like gods in the court room. What on earth do you mean "pray that God's grace etc., etc., etc." I suggest that we pray that in 3 years this bunch of rogues in the government are voted out. We can only hope that Hillary won't finish the job for Obama.