Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#101

Post by dennisgorelik »

jeffdavis wrote: post #100
JoshTriplett wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Every juror should understand that they have a responsibility to consider the law, not just the facts. In most trials, that consideration will amount to "Yup, the law seems fine", with no further thought required. However, I believe that consideration ought to happen in every single trial, with every single juror. No reasonable doubt should exist that the law remains just and appropriate. If that…

Where does it stop? Say someone is on trial for tax evasion, because they paid only 20% rather than the 30% they owe under the law. Is it OK for a juror to say "gee, taxes should only be 20% anyway, so I'm going to let him off the hook"?

Yes, if jurors feel that way about tax laws - then yes - acquit the defendant and possibly start changing tax law.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#102

Post by ams6110 »

elecengin wrote: post #32
mindcrime wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably varies by state (or not), but the last time I was on a jury, the jury selection process went like this: 1. 12 jurors are seated. 2. the prosecution asks questions of the jurors, either as a group (eg, "raise your hand if X") or individually. 3. the defense does the same thing 4. the prosecution can excuse any jurors they think are not suited for the case 5. the defense can do likewise 6. If less than 12 j…

This is called voire dire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Voir_dire The plaintiff / defense teams are allowed to remove an limited number of jurors unless the removal is among a list of valid exempt causes (in which case the removal is exempt from the limit). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge The process can become very very thought out in high profile cases - there are psychologists…

I would say that with the rise of facebook and other social media, it's easier than ever before for both the prosecution and the defense to be able to develop a very good profile of the potential jurors. And if one side or the other does not have the resources or expertise to do so, they could be at a serious disadvantage before the trial even starts.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#103

Post by tzs »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #87
tzs wrote: post #63

Suppose just 5% of the potential jurors believe, say, that it should not be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, or to beat up someone who dares to be homosexual in public, or to beat up someone who dares to flirt with a white woman while being black, and so on. If you have a jury of 12 and require a unanimous verdict for conviction, then 46% of randomly chosen juries will not convict people for the aforementioned cri…

I strongly disagree. Every juror should understand that they have a responsibility to consider the law, not just the facts. In most trials, that consideration will amount to "Yup, the law seems fine", with no further thought required. However, I believe that consideration ought to happen in every single trial, with every single juror. No reasonable doubt should exist that the law remains just and appropriate. If that…

We already have a system to make sure laws remain appropriate: it is called an elected legislature.

They system you are suggesting would in effect turn every trial into a little election on what the law should be, but with only a small fraction of the electorate voting, and the results only applying to that one case.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#104

Post by jrockway »

karamazov wrote: post #20
burgerbrain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These aren't issues with nullification, they are issues with the "jury of your peers" system in general. Of course that, like democracy, is often deemed to be off limits for criticism simply because a few hundred years ago we agreed it was the best idea around.

Do you have an example of a better idea?

The best system for me would be the one where I get to make all the decisions. The problem with this system is that it doesn't scale very well...

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#105

Post by cynicalkane »

timwiseman wrote: post #78
cynicalkane wrote: post #47

Jury nullification is typically portrayed as a defense against unjust laws, and some judicial thinkers see it that way. But it's important to point out the dominant view and the current view of jurisprudence views jury nullification as kind of an unfortunate edge case. Here's the Fourth Circuit from 1969: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to…

Clearly, the Fourth Circuit at the time saw it that way. But that does not address the question of how was it viewed by the Framers who gaurunteed one (at least on the Federal level) in Article III. It also does not address the question (perhaps more relevant today) of what ought it to be and how ought it be treated? It is possible, indeed likely given the history, that the Framer's saw providing nullifcation as part…

Well, original intent as a theory of law interpretation is considered problematic, and not really used by anyone. You can't necessarily read lawmakers' minds, and lots of law--especially the Constitution--was written by many different personalities often at odds with each other, where 'original intent' might not exist even theoretically.

Some people confuse the 'original meaning' theories of someone like Scalia with original intent, particularly since the words of the Founders could be used to support either theory. But it's a different thing. So you can talk about what the Founders meant, and it's a fine thing to think about, but it's not something that will get you far in the courtroom unless you can link that to what is written and what is in common law.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#106

Post by _dps »

tzs wrote: post #63

Suppose just 5% of the potential jurors believe, say, that it should not be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, or to beat up someone who dares to be homosexual in public, or to beat up someone who dares to flirt with a white woman while being black, and so on. If you have a jury of 12 and require a unanimous verdict for conviction, then 46% of randomly chosen juries will not convict people for the aforementioned cri…

I agree with your analysis and the injustice of outcomes depending so strongly on the specific twelve jurors for cases involving a strongly held small-minority opinion.

On the other hand, I'm not really optimistic about the strategy of electing legislators to effect changes in these specific kinds of laws for all the usual reasons.

In the specific case of marijuana, the benefits of decriminalization are diffuse and primarily among socially marginalized groups whereas the countervailing forces are socially respected and also highly concentrated (politicians who want to "do something", and law enforcement agencies who get a ton of discretionary power and funding out of the "War on Drugs"). This is a recipe for coordination failures on the "repeal" side and for systematic political advantages on the "criminalize" side.

One particular beauty of the jury system is that it is a legitimate buck-stops-here kind of way for local populations to control their local law enforcement in the face of overreaching non-local laws; if a particular city becomes so full of people who just don't believe that marijuana should be criminalized they can make that happen locally. Electing legislators is slow, and in the case of federal laws like drug enforcement, must be made to work in the entire nation at once rather than one-community-at-a-time.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#107

Post by ataggart »

tzs wrote: post #63

Suppose just 5% of the potential jurors believe, say, that it should not be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, or to beat up someone who dares to be homosexual in public, or to beat up someone who dares to flirt with a white woman while being black, and so on. If you have a jury of 12 and require a unanimous verdict for conviction, then 46% of randomly chosen juries will not convict people for the aforementioned cri…

>Then elect legislators who will decriminalize marijuana.

The problem is that politicians are elected on a package-deal of positions. Just imagine the kind of bad haircuts and/or crappy food we'd have if we all voted on which one barber/grocery combination store would service everyone.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#108

Post by neilparikh »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #101
jeffdavis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it stop? Say someone is on trial for tax evasion, because they paid only 20% rather than the 30% they owe under the law. Is it OK for a juror to say "gee, taxes should only be 20% anyway, so I'm going to let him off the hook"?

Yes, if jurors feel that way about tax laws - then yes - acquit the defendant and possibly start changing tax law.

But then you're bringing opinion into the law. If the jurors on one trial think that 30% isn't fair, but jurors on another trial think that it is fair, you haven't got a fair system anymore. Isn't the law based on justice and fairness?

And this doesn't only apply to tax laws. There could be a difference of opinion on other cases too.

While the law nullification idea is a good idea in theory, it starts to break down in practice.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#109

Post by sliverstorm »

tzs wrote: post #103
JoshTriplett wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Every juror should understand that they have a responsibility to consider the law, not just the facts. In most trials, that consideration will amount to "Yup, the law seems fine", with no further thought required. However, I believe that consideration ought to happen in every single trial, with every single juror. No reasonable doubt should exist that the law remains just and appropriate. If that…

We already have a system to make sure laws remain appropriate: it is called an elected legislature. They system you are suggesting would in effect turn every trial into a little election on what the law should be, but with only a small fraction of the electorate voting, and the results only applying to that one case.

Indeed, selective application of the law is a tyranny in itself, and the public gets awfully bent out of shape when police officers try it.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#110

Post by dennisgorelik »

neilparikh wrote: post #108
dennisgorelik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if jurors feel that way about tax laws - then yes - acquit the defendant and possibly start changing tax law.

But then you're bringing opinion into the law. If the jurors on one trial think that 30% isn't fair, but jurors on another trial think that it is fair, you haven't got a fair system anymore. Isn't the law based on justice and fairness? And this doesn't only apply to tax laws. There could be a difference of opinion on other cases too. While the law nullification idea is a good idea in theory, it starts to break down i…

The whole idea of having jurors is to bring opinion of peers into making judgement about the case.

Of course it's better to make a system that would be consistently fair (e.g. keep taxes at the level vast majority of society supports it). But if two available options are "not fair" and "not always fair" - I'd pick "not always fair".

Post reply on HN