To install click the Add extension button. That's it.
The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.
How to transfigure the Wikipedia
Would you like Wikipedia to always look as professional and up-to-date? We have created a browser extension. It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology.
Try it — you can delete it anytime.
Install in 5 seconds
Yep, but later
4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
Democratic and Republican candidates were selected in party primaries held September 14, 1982.
YouTube Encyclopedic
1/4
Views:
15 467 086
299 578
17 347
2 019
The Law You Won't Be Told
Connecticut and Massachusetts Compared
Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Address | Harvard Commencement 2015
President Reagan's Trip to Massachusetts on January 26, 1983
Transcription
# The Law You Won't Be Told
On a Jury you know your options: guilty, or
not. But there's another choice that neither
the judge nor the lawyers will tell you -- often
because they're not allowed to and also it
might better if you *don't* know.
This video will tell you that third choice,
but be warned: simply *watching* may prevent
you from ever serving on a jury -- so this
is your last chance to hit the pause button
before you learn about...
Jury nullification: when the defendant is
100% beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty *but*
the jurors *also* think he shouldn't be punished.
The jury can nullify the law and let him go
free.
But before your on your next jury and yell
'Null! Booya!' at the judge you should know
that just talking about jury nullification
in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested.
Though a video such as this one, simply acknowledging
the *existence* of jury nullification and
in *no way advocating* it is totally OK. And,
while we're at it:
*(CGP Grey is not a lawyer, this is not legal
advice it is meant for entertainment purposes
only. Seriously, guy, don't do anything in
a court of law based on what an Internet Video
told you. No joke.)*
So why can't you do this? It's because nullification
isn't *in* the law †, but exists as a logical
consequence of two other laws:
First: that juries can't be punished for a
'wrong' decision -- no matter the witnesses,
DNA, or video proof show. That's the point
of a jury: to be the decider.
and
Second: when a defendant is found not-guilty,
that defendant can't be tried again for the
same crime ‡.
So there *are* only two stated options: guilty
or not, it's just that jury nullification
is when the words of the jurors don't match
their thoughts -- for which they can't be
punished and their not-guilty decision can't
be changed.
These laws are necessary for juries to exist
within a fair system, but the logical consequence
is... contentious -- lawyers and judges argue
about jury nullification like physicists argue
about quantum mechanics. Both are difficult
to observe and the interpretation of both
has a huge philosophical ramification for
the subject as a whole.
Is nullification the righteous will of the
people or an anarchy of twelve or just how
citizens judge their laws?
The go-to example in favor of nullification
is the fugitive slave law: when Northern juries
refused to convict escaped slaves and set
them free.
Can't argue with that.
But the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing
to convict white lynch mobs. Not humanity
at its best.
But both of these are juries nullifying the
law.
Also juries have *two* options where their
thoughts may differ from their words. Jury
nullification usually refers to the non-guilty
version but juries can convict without evidence
just as easily as they can acquit in spite
of it.
This is jury nullification too and the jurors
are protected by the first rule, though the
second doesn't apply and judges have the power
to overrule a guilty verdict if they think
the jurors are… nt the best. And, of course,
a guilty defendant can appeal, at least for
a little while. Which makes the guilty form
of jury nullification weaker than the not-guilty
kind. Cold comfort, though.
Given the possibility of jurors who might
ignore the law as written, it's not surprising
when picking jurors for a trial, lawyers -- whose
existence is dependent on an orderly society
-- will ask about nullification, usually in
the slightly roundabout way:
"Do you have any beliefs that might prevent
you from making a decision based strictly
on the law?"
If after learning about jury nullification
you think it's a good idea: answer 'yes' and
you'll be rejected, but answer 'no' with the
intent to get on the jury to nullify and you've
just committed perjury -- technically a federal
crime -- which makes the optimal strategy
once on a jury to zip it.
But This introduces a problem for jurors who
intend to nullify: telling the other 11 angry
men about your position is risky, which makes
nullification as a tool for fixing unjust
laws nation wide problematic.
(Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges
in the United States never make it to trial
and rather end in a plea bargain, but that's
a story for another time.)
The only question about jury nullification
that may matter is if jurors should be *told*
about it and the courts are near universal
† in their decision: 'no way'.
Which might seem self-interested -- again,
courts depend on the law -- but there's evidence
that telling jurors about nullification changes
the way they vote by making evidence less
relevant -- which isn't surprising: that's
what nullification *is*. But mock trials also
show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty
verdicts and unsympathetic defendants get
more *guilty* verdicts in front of jurors
who were explicitly told about nullification
compared to those who weren't.
Which sounds bad, but it also isn't difficult
to imagine situations where jurors blindly
following the law would be terribly unjust
-- which is the heart of nullification: juries
judge the law, not solely evidence.
In the end righteous will of the people, or
anarchy, or citizen lawmaking -- the system
leaves you to decide -- but as long as courts
are fair they require these rules, so jury
nullification will always be with us.
Democrat Francis X. Belotti was elected Attorney General. He defeated Republican Richard L. Wainwright and Libertarian Michael Reilly in the general election.
Proposed Amendment to the Constitution - The proposed constitutional amendment would remove the constitutional prohibition against the use of public funds to aid or maintain private primary or secondary schools.[5]
Proposed Legislative Amendment to the Constitution[6]
Candidate
Votes
%
±
Yes
708,034
37.90%
✓
No
1,160,130
62.10%
Question 2
Proposed Amendment to the Constitution - The proposed constitutional amendment would allow the legislature to enact laws authorizing the state courts to impose the death penalty on the conviction of crimes to be specified by the law.[7]
Proposed Legislative Amendment to the Constitution[8]
Candidate
Votes
%
±
✓
Yes
1,131,668
60.02%
No
748,549
39.98%
Question 3
Law Proposed by Initiative Petition - would require that before the construction or operation of any nuclear power plant or low-level radioactive waste storage or disposal facility in the Commonwealth, the legislature must make certain findings and a majority of voters must approve the facility at a statewide election.[9]