Jury nullification

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ironwing

I agree there are assinine laws on the books that are ruining people's lives for no purpose. There is also a mechanism for changing those laws - stop voting for the morons who passed them. Jury nullification subverts all laws, good and bad.

a much more effective method is to actually have a relationship with your elected officials.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The fact that the AG refused to retroactively apply the corrected law to Genarlow shows that he as well as everyone connected to law has no intentions for justice.

i thought it was the GA supreme court that decided the law was not retroactive?


who in GA thinks this is a good use of judicial resources?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Forget that as a juror you take an oath to uphold the law. Nullify? Congratulations, your word means nothing.

Such, an oath should be illegal. And people should refuse to give it.

I half agree. Such an oath should not be illegal, or you might as well rule all oaths under any circumstance illegal, which is impractical since the purpose of an oath is to inform the person under oath that they will be held accountable for their actions. We need some form of ceremony to differentiate when a person's words and actions will be accountable and when they will not, you can call it an oath or something else, but it amounts to the same thing.

I do agree with you however, that if someone cannot render a fair and just verdict according to the law, they should refuse to give such an oath saying that they will. If enough people so refuse, the result will change the law anyway, and without having to foreswear (break oath) oneself. Ex., during voir dire, the jurors are usually asked a question such as "if the prosecution presents sufficient evidence that the defendant had on him X amount of marijuana, could you convict him of the crime of possession knowing he would be sentenced to prison?" If you feel drug convictions shouldn't result in prison sentences, you shouldnt lie and take the oath so you can nullify, you should simply respond honestly that you could not vote to convict the defendant under these circumstances. If enough people agree with you, and finding a jury becomes too onerous time and time again, the law will change. That's process, not anarchy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Since U.S. v. Moylan (1969) and U.S. v. Dougherty (1972) the defense can no longer bring up jury nullification.

That's interesting,I didn't know that. Learn something new every day eh?

 

[Craig234]

Jury Nullification is a two-edged sword - it's basically an alternate law made by individuals that overrides the system of electing representatives who pass laws, and the legal system which uses its discretion who to prosecute.

In my view, it's an act of sabotage; a non-violent version of shooting the prosecutor to stop the trial. Basically, whether it's an act of justice or injustice is in the eye of the beholder; certainly there are both cases most of us can see where an individual doing this is doing the right thing against an injust law, and doing the wrong thing and undermining the rule of law.

Examples of each would be the history of juries refusing to convict those who helped slaves escape for the former, and for the latter the juries who refused to convict fellow whites for lynching blacks, leaving blacks no criminal justice.

Anyone who advocated jury nullification, I ask you to provide an answer to how you would solve the problem of whites letting off fellow whites for actions against blacks in the racist cultures we used to have; if there's no answer to that, then there's a serious problem with jury nullification left open. Again, like other acts of sabotage, that doesn't mean that it can't happen.

It does seem, though, like a violation of the oath, arguably unless it's done on the basis of the person believing that they are following the law by doing it, probably on the basis of thinking the law is unconstitutional; but even then, it's a layman putting their constitutional interpretation ahead of the legal system which has a process for the defense to appeal on constitutional grounds.

All in all, I'd say it's something that doens't really have a place in the system, but does have a place as an act of sabotage/civil disobedience. I know I'd have an issue with both helping an injustice, and the oath that required it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Forget that as a juror you take an oath to uphold the law. Nullify? Congratulations, your word means nothing.

Such, an oath should be illegal. And people should refuse to give it.

I half agree. Such an oath should not be illegal, or you might as well rule all oaths under any circumstance illegal, which is impractical since the purpose of an oath is to inform the person under oath that they will be held accountable for their actions. We need some form of ceremony to differentiate when a person's words and actions will be accountable and when they will not, you can call it an oath or something else, but it amounts to the same thing.

I do agree with you however, that if someone cannot render a fair and just verdict according to the law, they should refuse to give such an oath saying that they will. If enough people so refuse, the result will change the law anyway, and without having to foreswear (break oath) oneself. Ex., during voir dire, the jurors are usually asked a question such as "if the prosecution presents sufficient evidence that the defendant had on him X amount of marijuana, could you convict him of the crime of possession knowing he would be sentenced to prison?" If you feel drug convictions shouldn't result in prison sentences, you shouldnt lie and take the oath so you can nullify, you should simply respond honestly that you could not vote to convict the defendant under these circumstances. If enough people agree with you, and finding a jury becomes too onerous time and time again, the law will change. That's process, not anarchy.

How would making it illegal for the court to require one oath make all oaths illegal. Requiring a jury to give up its power to acquit based on any reason they wish is wrong. It only differs in degree from requiring that the jury taking an oath says "I agree to find the defendant guilty."

If asked "if the prosecution presents sufficient evidence that the defendant had on him X amount of marijuana, could you convict him of the crime of possession knowing he would be sentenced to prison?" and a juror answer no then that juror should not be able to be removed for cause by the prosecution.