mawilson

The payoff for this use of one's time would be what? Sounds like monetary masturbation to me.

A more detailed and developed explanation of the DIM terminology is included in Dr Peikoff's lecture "Integration as the Essence of Personal Identity".

I received the all-day treatment on Myers-Briggs in a management group where I worked before I retired. The result was INTJ in 1992.

David, did you mean that you do not support my opinion or that I had not supported it in my post? If the latter: My support for my assertion that the purpose of a criminal trial is to obtain justice for the accused is that the trial is a part of the process of determining what shall be done to the accused, if anything. What is done to him is a matter of justice.

I am responding to various posts of Jun 13&14, 2004 on the topic of Jury Nullification. I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but an experienced juror in the Superior Courts of Ventura County, California. I am also not an anarchist or libertarian. I advocate the rule of objective law. My position is as follows (addressing only criminal jury trials): The purpose of a criminal trial is to obtain justice for the accused. All the elements which come together in a trial are to serve this purpose. These elements include the specific charges, the applicable law, evidence presented, and the functions of the judge, counsel, and jury. In a trial, the law is in service of justice; a trial is not in service to the law. If a juror finds that the law is in opposition to justice for the accused, he should render a verdict of Not Guilty. My theory in this is that the charges, the law, and the evidence must jointly prove guilt of an actual crime on the part of the accused. That these prove that the accused violated the law is insufficient. With one exception, indicated below, the law must define an actual crime, one entailing a violation of rights. The exception, mentioned above, in the instance of non-objective law, is the accused having flouted the law. If this is in evidence, the juror should render a Guilty verdict. This would be just to the accused as he knowingly violated the principle of the rule of law, as well as the law he flouted. It may be said that this places the authority of jurors outside and above the law. This is true and it is proper because it is the last-resort means, in a single instance, of subordinating society and its laws to moral law. Here I address objections and other points: The purpose of the Not Guilty verdict in opposition to the law is not to go about changing the law. Although it may incidentally promote that, its purpose is justice for the accused. Even under the most rigorous system of objective law, laws are made by men who can produce some non-objective laws. Betsy: “…the jury is only supposed to rule on the facts and not on the law. If they do, they are breaking the law.” It is the law that juries are to be instructed to act only as finders of fact. It is not clear that juries are bound by law to abide by that instruction. Perhaps someone could cite the law under which jurors are so bound. Stephen_speicher: “Jury nullification is a form of anarchism, one in which the person is, in effect, making his own law.” Jury nullification has the effect of making the law void in respect to the charges at hand in a particular case. This is not making a law. It is rendering the law silent. DavidOdden: “Refusing to convict, when the facts indicate that the defendant did the deed proscribed by the law, violates the law.” What law does such a juror violate? If jury nullification is a form of anarchy, then we should replace citizen juries with expert government jurists who will apply the law regardless of individual justice and who will not, through hubris or susceptibility to emotional appeal, produce such outcomes as in the OJ criminal case. Is this what you are arguing for?