What is the Ethnic Nationalist Position on Crime?
The Criminal Justice System: Part II
Word Count 1,683
The Criminal Justice System
It is generally felt, that in specific cases, some sort of ‘penal’ prerogative is necessary for the betterment of a civil and social construct; but this has become a very misleading and arbitrary understanding of ‘ritual and punishment’.
For instance, a jury of one’s peers has taken on an over-broad interpretation, as seen in a multi-ethnic environment, and it seems that a jury of ‘males’ only, is somehow to pervert any semblance of justice, even though females often show a tenacity of ‘goodness’ as to seem to instruct others on the measurability or responsibility of social duties such as alimony or divorce constraints, including parental responsibilities – a traditional male prerogative, one based on a cultural ethos of ‘protection’, ‘duty’, and responsibility of both women and children – not withstanding the myriad of modern smears brought to bear by certain female agitators and their enablers upon the characters of the Western male who, in the main, loved and adored both his family and his mate. In those cases in which a civil legal case was to be heard men, generally, held to a higher court, as it was traditionally a man’s honour, which described his assessment of legal or moral imperatives and, in some cases, would choose to ‘nullify’ the law of the land – as was the case of William Penn in England. Of course, our women have, in the main, a higher conception of ‘honour’, yet is much more moderate in principle, than the majority of men. This, of course, is balance.
Juries were originally introduced into England to protect the individual from the tyranny of government. The first case in which juries nullified a law was that of William Penn and William Mead in England in 1670. These jurors refused to convict the two Quaker activists charged with ‘unlawful assembly’. The judge refused to accept a verdict other than guilty, and ordered the jurors to resume their deliberations without food or drink. When the jurors persisted in their refusal to convict, the court fined them and committed them to prison until the fines were paid. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas ordered the jurors released, holding that they could not be punished for their verdict.
Jury nullification was introduced into America1 in 1735 in the trial of John PeterZenger, who repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his public news journal. This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited criticism of the King or his appointed officers. The attacks became sufficient to bring Zenger to trial. He clearly was guilty of breaking the law, which held that ‘true statements’ could be libelous. Zenger's lawyer, however, one Andrew Hamilton, addressed himself to the jury, arguing that the court's law was outmoded. Hamilton contended that falsehood was the principal thing that makes a libel. It took the jury only a few minutes to nullify the law and declare Zenger not guilty. Ever since, the truth has been a defense in libel cases.
All of the above extends from the premise that peers, that is, those common individuals who know this individual, will be present to receive both the fact and law of the case, and to ensure that justice for the defendant, as well as the folk-community, was fully realized. Moreover, peers, as well, refers to a racial construct, and not just simple ‘bodies’ that must needs be, to simply fill vacant seats.
The Ethnic Nationalist knows full well that, when facing criminal charges of the common variety, such as robbery, murder, and rape, that the rules of evidence is a common, or should be, relationship to the ‘facts’ of any case; the phrase “rules of fact and law” should, as well, provide for a comprehensive, not cursory, appraisal of documents, testimony, and physical evidence to either acquit or convict an individual of any particular crime. This is self-evident to most individual citizens. The reality, however, is much different.
Traditionally, in cases of ‘fact and law’, it was the Jury, which made the determinations of guilt or innocence based, in its totality, upon the evidence and on the ‘rule’ of law by which the defendant was facing justice. Today, however, in American courts, the jury has been subsumed by the legal referee of the court, the Judge – and has now almost exclusively taken over for the State, the rights and privileges restricted to a jury of one’s peers, by controlling in a dictatorial fashion, the essence of evidence and just how the jury should perceive this evidence. When juries were first established, it was the duty and reasonable observation of persons of the jury who were the final arbitrators of guilt or innocence – in some cases, the law, as stipulated by a King or public rulers (such as in a democracy) was perceived as being onerous to the defendant and, by extension, the nation-at-large, and would subsequently invalidate those rules or laws by utilizing the nullification right of the members of the Jury – such we see in the little-used, but perfectly legal and powerful, Jury Nullification.
Within this context, and specifically regarding this discussion, we are thinking primarily of ‘white’ defendants, and the system in which they would find themselves, either for good or ill, for infractions against the ethno-state, that is, their folk-community.
Without delving into the intricacies of ‘fact and law’, as this is beyond the purview of this work, our attention is therefore drawn to the treatment and definitions of the modern imperatives of racial crimes, or ‘hate crimes’ in the context of white nationalism.
iii.
White ethnic Nationalists are not criminals, yet, if one were to view written and video reports about political activity, public or private, one comes away with the feeling that for every ‘racial crime’, it is a ‘white man or woman’ who is not only the perpetrator, but the very conduit by which ‘race hate’ enters into the world. The truth, however, is much simpler and controversial, than it would appear.
White men, especially, are hard hit. The criminal ‘enhancements’ for so-called hate crimes reaches the unbelievable, and the pain and suffering with which family members, spouses, and children are made to bear is unforgivable. In the thousands upon thousands of crimes committed against white-ethnic nationals, by non-white aliens, of which there are ample statistics to support, most white people are aware of the lack of media reporting regarding the implicit war against our ethnic kinsmen and kinswomen.
If anyone has ever been involved in the ‘american justice’ system, one is appalled at the lack of substance, and the genuinely ‘un-american’ atmosphere in both the court system and the penal system in general. One notices the high percentage of non-whites, which control and maintain most large city jail systems, and the whites one does run into, are haggard, underpaid, and generally mean-spirited (or should we say, ‘de-spirited’). The ‘process’, painful for even those who have spent more than a single visit, and washed away in the spectacle, are completely submerged in a sea of foreignness and hostility. Add to this the ‘racial’ spectre, and the ‘system’ seems to emerge as an angry and hungry animal – if you are white.
The Ethnic Nationalist knows that ‘lawyer’ is a word, which means ‘sell-out’, coward, system-player, and anything other than advocate; for this to change, the once-proud ‘law profession’ will have to promote a more pure form of Law, than is practiced now. For those who feel that they will never be in any of the above situations, and pray every Sunday for souls of those ‘lesser’ than themselves, and yet scream for the blood of racists and those who have been involved in intra-racial attacks, and side with the non-white ethnic, your time will come.
________________________
Notes:
Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that, "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court , stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:
"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges...They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." FLS