101–110 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Slavery wasn't a crime. Slavery was 100% enabled by the fact that escaping from slavery was a crime.
Yes, but keeping someone enslaved was not a crime by the laws of that time and place.
A jury can’t decide to make something a crime, they can only choose to not punish a crime.
Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.
They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.
Of course there could be upper laws blocking them from making it an official stance, but it really feels like fighting a reality with theorical boundaries.
The issue is not the abuse of a system hack, and probably more around changing people's mind (which can take centuries and get reversed in a few years...)
Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.
Who has the magical power to know which crimes these are that are "in principle clearly wrong" with such certainty that they can override the community's beliefs? We're all fallible humans and nobody has a special private line to The Truth.
Does the door open to the other side, which is an all-white jury finding Ruben Carter guilty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool. If you say in voir dire that you wouldn't vote to convict even if the person is guilty, you're not going to get put on a jury.
No, but you might be put in a jail cell overnight for contempt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyer- "Would you nullifiy this verdict due to personal beliefs?" Juror with strong opinions "ohh no, never"
How it actually works (based on serving in jury selection pools): Lawyer: Are members of your profession stereotypically capable of independent critical thought? Juror: Yes? Lawyer: Dismissed. (They just ask for professions and maybe educational background then infer the rest.)
Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.
It's a limited trump card, in that a jury can nullify law but not make it, or even adjust the charge. And their decision holds no legal precident beyond the immediate case. I think of an informed jury as the tire between the wheel and the road, to fill the gap between the abstract judgement of the legislature and the concrete particulars. Tires do fail, sometimes fatally, but they save a lot of wear on the whole syst…
I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I would, I would love to serve on a jury. I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?
Why in the world would HN readers not be eligible to serve on a jury. I was on a jury trial when a spouse of a prosecutor office employee was allowed on. People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool.
I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I would, I would love to serve on a jury. I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?
I served on a grand jury for three months. We listened to police testimony, the DA's office told us the charges, and we voted. Police testimony was all we had to work with when deciding whether or not to indict. It felt like a charade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.
I used to think of this as an utter failure of the system, but lingering on this for a while: if the vast majority of citizens (= people who can meaningfully participate in the society) thinks lynching is a good thing, the jury nullification is only a step behind making lynching OK in the books for that group. Of course there could be upper laws blocking them from making it an official stance, but it really feels lik…