Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

[Ravi]

Think of the Emmett Till murder case. Yeah, jury nullfication works, just not in the cause of justice every time.

And therein lies the problem.

Yet sending someone to prison who has "too much" pot, and nobody to rat out, is justice?

And since when has perfection ever been an option?

No, that isn't justice. Better to try to change the law than be dishonest. Better to refuse to be on the jury.

Why monkey with the court system when the problem is the actual law?

 

[Liability]

The jury's power to acquit even the guilty is unreviewable. Thus, the power of jury nullification is always present in every case.

If you find yourself on jury duty and you are deciding a case where the defendant did something technically illegal (like, for example, an act of vigilante "justice" against the man who attacked the defendant's daughter), it COULD happen that the prosecutor presents perfectly valid evidence PROVING beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it. Technically, the defendant is guilty as hell.

But you're sitting in the jury deliberation room with your fellow jurors and you discover that you just do not have the heart to declare that the man is guilty. It might be that you KNOW he is. Vigilante "justice" is a damn dangerous thing. The guy he attacked maybe didn't even get his case to court. HIS guilt was never proved before a jury of his peers as was HIS right. So, you realize that what the defendant on trial did is vigilante justice, you recognize that it's antithetical to our system of "justice," too.

You sit there and say to yourself, perhaps, "I'm not kidding myself. If I were to vote JUST on the evidence and on the LAW as I have been instructed on the law by the Judge, I'd have to find that the prosecutor proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt. If I do that, I have to say 'guilty.' But I'll be damned if I call this defendant a criminal under these circumstances."

So you vote for "not guilty."

If all of your fellow jurors agree with you, then the vigilante defendant literally walks. If only you or only some of the other jurors vote 'not guilty,' then you'll end up with a hung jury.

Such an unreviewable action by a trial jury is what is meant by "jury nullification." It can serve as a collective conscience for society. Or it can be abused. But you may not realize that you are capable of doing that thing UNTIL the time comes to deliberate.

 

[Oddball]

Such an unreviewable action by a trial jury is what is meant by "jury nullification." It can serve as a collective conscience for society. Or it can be abused. But you may not realize that you are capable of doing that thing UNTIL the time comes to deliberate.

Anything can be abused....Perfection cannot be a option.

Jury nullification is a check for the conman man, from being abused by the legislative and judicial oligarchies...The jury box being the fourth branch of de jure government, if you will.

 

[Oddball]

And therein lies the problem.

Yet sending someone to prison who has "too much" pot, and nobody to rat out, is justice?

And since when has perfection ever been an option?

No, that isn't justice. Better to try to change the law than be dishonest. Better to refuse to be on the jury.

Why monkey with the court system when the problem is the actual law?

Nullification isn't "monkeying" with the judicial system...It's a lawful part of it.

And you want to point to changing the law?...What's the track record of legislators admitting that they're wrong and repealing an entirely ineffective and/or counter-productive law?

 

[Liability]

Such an unreviewable action by a trial jury is what is meant by "jury nullification." It can serve as a collective conscience for society. Or it can be abused. But you may not realize that you are capable of doing that thing UNTIL the time comes to deliberate.

Anything can be abused....Perfection cannot be a option.

Jury nullification is a check for the conman man, from being abused by the legislative and judicial oligarchies...The jury box being the fourth branch of de jure government, if you will.

I'm not disputing that.

The phrase "if men were angels" comes to mind.

The fact is: unless we both get rid of the jury trial system and the legal concept preventing double jeopardy, then jury nullification will forever remain an option for any jury.

And if it can be an arguably good thing many times (like a jury suddenly finding that it cannot place the label of "criminal" on an accused person where other factors seem to make that verdict unjust), it CAN also be abused.

It makes no practical difference. It's a power that will exist -- for good or for ill -- as long as there are criminal jury trials by a jury of our peers and as long as the rule of law (Constitutional law in our case) prevents trying a person a second time after one full fair trial to verdict.

 

[George Costanza]

Tone the snark down, lads.

I have disagreed from time to time with Quantum. He may be stubborn (am I wrong in seeing most of us as stubborn to some degree?), but he's not irrational.

And by the way, the Costanza crack at President Bush's expense is laughable. I grant you that President Bush spoke, informally at least, in a poor manner too often. But to jump from that observation to the contention that he wasn't "smart" is facially ridiculous.

There is much better evidence to support the proposition that President Bush is smart than there is for the oft-repeated claim that President Obama is.

No snark going on, Liability - I was just havin' a little fun with my pal, QW at Dubya's expense. I thank QW for the positive rep points he sent my way for the post you are referring to as "snark."

Now - about Dubya: I was not referring to his problems with the English language when I referenced his lack of intelligence. And of course I am aware that Geoge W. Bush is an intelligent man - you do not get to be Pres. of this great country by being stupid.

In fact, Dubya illustrates a point I have often pondered - I know a number of very intelligent people who are, at the same time, very, VERY conservative politically. I have often asked myself, why? How can seemingly intelligent people embrace some of the political tenets of the Right? Ah, but that is the subject for another thread and another time.

In the meantime, don't get your panties in a bunch - ain't no snarkin' goin' on here.

 

[George Costanza]

Such an unreviewable action by a trial jury is what is meant by "jury nullification." It can serve as a collective conscience for society. Or it can be abused. But you may not realize that you are capable of doing that thing UNTIL the time comes to deliberate.

Anything can be abused....Perfection cannot be a option.

Jury nullification is a check for the conman man, from being abused by the legislative and judicial oligarchies...The jury box being the fourth branch of de jure government, if you will.

I'm not disputing that.

The phrase "if men were angels" comes to mind.

The fact is: unless we both get rid of the jury trial system and the legal concept preventing double jeopardy, then jury nullification will forever remain an option for any jury.

And if it can be an arguably good thing many times (like a jury suddenly finding that it cannot place the label of "criminal" on an accused person where other factors seem to make that verdict unjust), it CAN also be abused.

It makes no practical difference. It's a power that will exist -- for good or for ill -- as long as there are criminal jury trials by a jury of our peers and as long as the rule of law (Constitutional law in our case) prevents trying a person a second time after one full fair trial to verdict.

Bravo!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think of the Emmett Till murder case. Yeah, jury nullfication works, just not in the cause of justice every time.

And therein lies the problem.

It's not every day I agree -- even in some small measure -- with Ravi. In fact, I may have a fever.

But yes.

If jury nullification is the power of a jury (or a juror) to ignore the rule of law and to substitute his own sentiments, in the place of the law, then that power is indeed very potent. GC posted three cases yesterday noting that Courts acknowledge that this jury power exists and that it exists for a reason. But it comes with logical problems and costs.

And as a factual matter, if it is occasionally used to let a man go free when he has engaged in something which is technically criminal (like shooting the bastard who raped his daughter under circumstances where it isn't legally justified but is instead pure vigilantism) it can also be used to let a guilty man go free for nefarious reasons.

It can be a dangerous two-edged sword.

I agree it is dangerous, but that does not mean we should eliminate it. The only possible way to eliminate jury nullification would be to give the state the power to ignore a jury verdict, and that scares me a lot more than the worse possible outcome of nullification.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tone the snark down, lads.

I have disagreed from time to time with Quantum. He may be stubborn (am I wrong in seeing most of us as stubborn to some degree?), but he's not irrational.

And by the way, the Costanza crack at President Bush's expense is laughable. I grant you that President Bush spoke, informally at least, in a poor manner too often. But to jump from that observation to the contention that he wasn't "smart" is facially ridiculous.

There is much better evidence to support the proposition that President Bush is smart than there is for the oft-repeated claim that President Obama is.

No snark going on, Liability - I was just havin' a little fun with my pal, QW at Dubya's expense. I thank QW for the positive rep points he sent my way for the post you are referring to as "snark."

Now - about Dubya: I was not referring to his problems with the English language when I referenced his lack of intelligence. And of course I am aware that Geoge W. Bush is an intelligent man - you do not get to be Pres. of this great country by being stupid.

In fact, Dubya illustrates a point I have often pondered - I know a number of very intelligent people who are, at the same time, very, VERY conservative politically. I have often asked myself, why? How can seemingly intelligent people embrace some of the political tenets of the Right? Ah, but that is the subject for another thread and another time.

In the meantime, don't get your panties in a bunch - ain't no snarkin' goin' on here.

Just want to affirm that what George said made me laugh, which is why I pos repped him. I do not think Liablity's comment was an attempt to defend me as much as it was to keep the tone of a conversation he was enjoying pleasant, and nothing George said made it otherwise for me.

 

[Liability]

Tone the snark down, lads.

I have disagreed from time to time with Quantum. He may be stubborn (am I wrong in seeing most of us as stubborn to some degree?), but he's not irrational.

And by the way, the Costanza crack at President Bush's expense is laughable. I grant you that President Bush spoke, informally at least, in a poor manner too often. But to jump from that observation to the contention that he wasn't "smart" is facially ridiculous.

There is much better evidence to support the proposition that President Bush is smart than there is for the oft-repeated claim that President Obama is.

No snark going on, Liability - I was just havin' a little fun with my pal, QW at Dubya's expense. I thank QW for the positive rep points he sent my way for the post you are referring to as "snark."

Now - about Dubya: I was not referring to his problems with the English language when I referenced his lack of intelligence. And of course I am aware that Geoge W. Bush is an intelligent man - you do not get to be Pres. of this great country by being stupid.

In fact, Dubya illustrates a point I have often pondered - I know a number of very intelligent people who are, at the same time, very, VERY conservative politically. I have often asked myself, why? How can seemingly intelligent people embrace some of the political tenets of the Right? Ah, but that is the subject for another thread and another time.

In the meantime, don't get your panties in a bunch - ain't no snarkin' goin' on here.

Ah, but there is.

There is snarkin' a plenty goin' on. Not JUST from you, either. Notice I said (earlier) "lads." Plural.

On the other hand, I have had some similar thoughts wondering how otherwise intelligent folks (even ones with good hearts to go along with their intellect) can be so fundamentally flawed in their thinking as to embrace the tenets of modern American liberalism.

It is a puzzlement indeed.