Jury Nullification

[akarunway 1]

What think Ye?

[wmw999 2,291]

I think it's a great example of something that's got to be taken on a case-by-case basis, that it had better be very rare, and that the opinion of any specific case is going to be very subjective. Because it's one of the few legal ways for a group of citizens to exercise their opinion of an unjust law or application thereof in fact, and not just in words.

But it's also just the other side of the coin of the kind of jury that convicts someone mainly because they're minority/gay/rich/whatever with minimal evidence of guilt.

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 1,050]

A check on the excess of law.

[yoink 321]

Really good video on it here: 

 

Personally it seems to me that more people would use it as a 'fuck you' or just for a laugh if they were told about it than as an actual check on an injust situation. That's just human nature.

That being the case people probably shouldn't be told about it.

 

Edit: how do I put a web link in without the new forum automatically embedding the video?? I hate stuff like this.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by yoink

[ryoder 1,523]

CGP Grey is great!

I've watched dozens of his videos.

It drove me nuts once when watching his "Rules for Rulers" videos, and he didn't state where he got the ideas, because I had never encountered the theory before. After much googling, I found a book on Amazon, and discovered a review under it from "CGP Grey", then I knew it was the source. So I read the book.

[Coreece 190]

25 minutes ago, yoink said:

Edit: how do I put a web link in without the new forum automatically embedding the video?? I hate stuff like this.

When you paste a link, there will be a black dialog box at the bottom notifying you that the link has been embedded.  Just click the part that says "display as link instead."

Edited February 25, 2019 by Coreece

[wolfriverjoe 1,450]

Well, it's a really good way to get out of jury duty.

One mention of it during the 'voir dire' process, and you can plan on going home.

 

It also goes against the jury instructions.

I sat on a jury last fall, and the instructions we were given at the end of the trial, while not using the words 'jury nullificaition', included something to the effect of:
"It doesn't matter if you like the law or agree with it. If the evidence shows that the defendant violated the law as it is written, you must find them guilty."

I agree with Wendy that it can be a way for 'the people' to fight unjust laws, but more likely would be used as a joke or a 'fuck you' as Yoink pointed out. 

[wmw999 2,291]

A few years ago I was on a jury panel, and was eliminated because I made it clear that i would not consider the maximum penalty (life without parole) for the crime (felony arson of a used car — but it was a third offense). In this case, offense 1 was a youthful drug offense 20+ years earlier, offense 2 was a fairly chickenshit-sounding parole violation 10 years later, and offense 3 was the car torching. Yeah, stupid, but no way I could go LWOP. The prosecutor and a couple of others took me aside to try to convince me, but dang. Even I have my limits. 

So they forestalled the potential, I guess  

Wendy P. 

[yoink 321]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

When you paste a link, there will be a black dialog box at the bottom notifying you that the link has been embedded.  Just click the part that says "display as link instead."

Thanks!

[yoink 321]

22 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

A few years ago I was on a jury panel, and was eliminated because I made it clear that i would not consider the maximum penalty (life without parole) for the crime (felony arson of a used car — but it was a third offense). In this case, offense 1 was a youthful drug offense 20+ years earlier, offense 2 was a fairly chickenshit-sounding parole violation 10 years later, and offense 3 was the car torching. Yeah, stupid, but no way I could go LWOP. The prosecutor and a couple of others took me aside to try to convince me, but dang. Even I have my limits. 

So they forestalled the potential, I guess  

Wendy P. 

Jury selection is the elephant in the room when it comes to 'will of the people'. I wonder if proper randomization wouldn't be fairer?

[ryoder 1,523]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

 In this case, offense 1 was a youthful drug offense 20+ years earlier, offense 2 was a fairly chickenshit-sounding parole violation 10 years later, and offense 3 was the car torching. Yeah, stupid, but no way I could go LWOP.

Oh for chrissake!

Think about the monetary damages he did, versus the cost to taxpayers for LWOP.

That is just asinine.

[wolfriverjoe 1,450]

Yup. That was "3 Strikes".

While the overall idea of getting repeat offenders 'off the street' had some merit, the implementation of it was really, really stupid.

[purevl 1]

NH keeps trying to get more people aware of jury nullification. Multiple bills have been introduced over the years requiring judges to tell juries about the option. Most recently in 2016, a bill passed the NH House (170-160) that would require judges to say "Even if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty." Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected it (5-0) so never made it to discussion there.

[yoink 321]

And given that apparently when told they can do that juries bias their application of nullification it’s probably for the best that it keeps getting knocked down... IMO, obviously.

[Westerly 61]

On 2/25/2019 at 6:06 PM, ryoder said:

 

Think about the monetary damages he did, versus the cost to taxpayers for LWOP.

 

I think that's the point. For profit prisons dont make much money without customers.