[debate] [Debate] Legality of defending oneself in a court of law

[Alan Light]

I came across this quote in an article by Jacob Sullum at Reason Online:

"Lepp maintained that he was growing the marijuana for patients who are legally permitted to use the drug under state law, but (as usual in these cases) he was not allowed to mention that at his trial, since it does not matter under federal law."  http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133672.html

I am wondering what justification there can possibly be for not allowing a defendant to defend themself in a court of law.  I can understand that a judge might instruct a jury to disregard such a defence as inconsequential to the matter at hand, but it seems obvious to me that the point of a jury trial is that the JURY, not the judge, is to make the final decision, and therefore should be able to hear any and all arguments that the defendant might want to make.  If it is a question of being concerned over such tactics going on forever in the manner of a fillibuster, a reasonable time limit could be imposed - say, an hour to mention facts that some would argue to be irrelevant.  I don't see any point to a jury trial at all, if the judge is allowed to prevent the jury from hearing any arguments that might convince a jury to find the defendant not guilty.

Moreover, it seems to me a violation of the most basic of human rights to refuse to allow a person to defend themself, whether in a brawl or in a court of law.  What point a court of law, if it can simply refuse a defendant to mount a defence?


Anyone willing to argue in favor of the law on this point?



Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090523/9b21648a/attachment.htm>