State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[George Costanza]

It's not placing ANYTHING above the law its deciding if the law that was made by man is immoral or illegal. Plain and simple. So yea it is very consistent with freedom and liberty. 2 things you know nothing about.

Sorry, but jury nullification is by definition a member of a jury placing themselves above the law. A juror that placed themselves below the law would decide guilt or innocence based on whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law - and not their own personal preferences as to what the law should be.

This kind of reasoning is why I know you are not a scientist of any type. If someone thinks they are above the law they believe the law applies to others, but not themselves. A jury that nullifies a law is saying the law does not apply to others so, by definition, they are not putting themselves above the law.

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, but jury nullification is by definition a member of a jury placing themselves above the law. A juror that placed themselves below the law would decide guilt or innocence based on whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law - and not their own personal preferences as to what the law should be.

This kind of reasoning is why I know you are not a scientist of any type. If someone thinks they are above the law they believe the law applies to others, but not themselves. A jury that nullifies a law is saying the law does not apply to others so, by definition, they are not putting themselves above the law.

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

They are saying it doesn't apply to anyone. People who put themselves above the law think the law applies to others, but not to themselves.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry, but jury nullification is by definition a member of a jury placing themselves above the law. A juror that placed themselves below the law would decide guilt or innocence based on whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law - and not their own personal preferences as to what the law should be.

This kind of reasoning is why I know you are not a scientist of any type. If someone thinks they are above the law they believe the law applies to others, but not themselves. A jury that nullifies a law is saying the law does not apply to others so, by definition, they are not putting themselves above the law.

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

Juries did the same thing during alcohol prohibition.

Politicians pass stupid laws....."We the people", via the jury box, refuse to assent to and enforce their stupid laws...Politicians wake the fuck up and serve the people, rather than trying to rule them.

Little wonder that stooge oligarchs, who cannot possibly get elected to public office, bristle at allowing the proles seated on juries to deem their tyranny as bullshit.

 

[JWBooth]

States rights and nullification were once a check on Federal overreach.
Jury nullification is a check on State overreach.

 

[Oddball]

States rights and nullification were once a check on Federal overreach.
Jury nullification is a check on State overreach.

Damn straight.

Jury box = 4th branch of de jure governance.

 

[MikeK]

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

By rejecting the validity of one plainly wrongful and unnecessary example, one does not place oneself "above the Law." The best example of placing oneself above the Law is seen in Nixon's infamous assertion of, "When a President does it it's not illegal."

I personally regard marijuana laws with contempt because they are predicated on fraud and malicious deception and they effect nothing but wrongful harm. If I were called to serve on a jury in a marijuana case I would nullify without hesitation and I would do my best to covertly encourage other jurors to do the same.

I don't consider myself to be above the marijuana laws. I condider the entire American Democracy to be above those perversions of the Law.

 

[George Costanza]

This kind of reasoning is why I know you are not a scientist of any type. If someone thinks they are above the law they believe the law applies to others, but not themselves. A jury that nullifies a law is saying the law does not apply to others so, by definition, they are not putting themselves above the law.

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

Juries did the same thing during alcohol prohibition.

Politicians pass stupid laws....."We the people", via the jury box, refuse to assent to and enforce their stupid laws...Politicians wake the fuck up and serve the people, rather than trying to rule them.

Little wonder that stooge oligarchs, who cannot possibly get elected to public office, bristle at allowing the proles seated on juries to deem their tyranny as bullshit.

So you do agree that jury nullification is placing the jury above the law - you simply feel that there is nothing wrong with that. Fair enough. I am pretty close to agreeing with that myself.

 

[George Costanza]

By rejecting the validity of one plainly wrongful and unnecessary example, one does not place oneself "above the Law."

Don't you see that when YOU define a law as "plainly wrongful and unncecssary," you are putting yourself in the position of then being able to discard the law and, as such, placing yourself above the law. The only problem with that is that the law became a law because it was duly enacted by the legislature. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean it is not a law.

I like Oddball's approach - at least he is being honest. Why not be like Oddball? Well . . . at least on this one point. Jury nullification is a placing of the jury above the law - which is right and proper if all twelve jurors feel that the law is truly a bad law. That is (or should be) the basic argument of the jury nullification proponents.

 

[George Costanza]

This kind of reasoning is why I know you are not a scientist of any type. If someone thinks they are above the law they believe the law applies to others, but not themselves. A jury that nullifies a law is saying the law does not apply to others so, by definition, they are not putting themselves above the law.

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

They are saying it doesn't apply to anyone. People who put themselves above the law think the law applies to others, but not to themselves.

That's true - but that is not the only way someone can place himself above the law.

A person who thinks the law does not apply to him so he disobeys it is disregarding the law, i.e., placing himself above the law. An example of that would be someone running a stop sign intentionally because he/she thinks stop signs are bad law.

But I submit that a person is on a jury somewhere, acquitting an obviously guilty marijuana possessor because he/she disagrees with the marijuana laws, is no different. In both cases, an INDIVIDUAL is putting his/her personal views about a law, above the law itself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the law says that someone who possesses marijuana is guilty of a crime, and a jury acquits someone who possessed marijuana solely because they disagree with the law, they are most certainly placing themselves above the law. They are, in effect saying, "since we disagree with the law, we are going to discard it in this case."

If that is not placing oneself above the law, I don't know what it.

They are saying it doesn't apply to anyone. People who put themselves above the law think the law applies to others, but not to themselves.

That's true - but that is not the only way someone can place himself above the law.

A person who thinks the law does not apply to him so he disobeys it is disregarding the law, i.e., placing himself above the law. An example of that would be someone running a stop sign intentionally because he/she thinks stop signs are bad law.

But I submit that a person is on a jury somewhere, acquitting an obviously guilty marijuana possessor because he/she disagrees with the marijuana laws, is no different. In both cases, an INDIVIDUAL is putting his/her personal views about a law, above the law itself.

You might have a point, except that, in order for a jury to nullify a law, more than one person would have to agree that the law is wrong.