Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
- Thread starter
- #41
Insufficient information.
The law does not condone jury nullification, but jurys still do it.
Generally speaking, it is resorted to when the prosecution itself (for whatever reason) is unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty of the crime. The basis for saying THIS particular case was an unjust prosecution is unclear.
If he kicked her but caused no injury -- in a state where the crime being prosecuted requires "injury" as an ELEMENT of that crime -- then it was perfectly proper to acquit the guy of that charge. But, here's the thing. If that's what happened, then it wasn't jury nullification. It was a failure of proof.
If the kick did cause "injury" however that term is defined in that State, and the jury recognized THAT fact, then their resort to "jury nullification" is itself an injustice.
I think you misunderstand the term justice. The law does not define justice, and only rarely embodies it. Justice is about being right and fair, not following laws that were laid down even when they are wrong. It was not just to send escaped slaves back to their owners, but it was completely legal. It is not just to send a person who defends his family from attack to prison, yet it happens.
If a trial is about justice like you are arguing it is, then the jury must also decide if the law is right as it is being applied. Judges and prosecutors do not do that, they only decide if the law, as they interpret it, can be used to achieve the ends they desire. That is why people can actually be charged with, and convicted of, hacking even if they have permission to use a computer and access files on it. The criminal justice system is about money, justifying its existence, and devouring more resources, it is not about justice.
Jury nullification is the onlu hope that normal people have when confronted with government excess.