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

Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#201

Post by growse »

Hamuko wrote: post #197
denton-scratch wrote: post #181

The jury's task in a criminal trial is to determine guilt or innocence based on the uncontested facts and the evidence (In the USA, I gather they can also recommend a verdict). That doesn't leave a lot of room for the jury to decide which laws ought to be enforced. I suppose it's reasonable for a jury to decide that a prosecution should not have been brought, even if the criminal act can be shown to have occurred. I…

What is even the point of a jury composed of laymen if their only task is to decipher if a law has been broken? Surely at that point you'd only want lawyers, as in, people with a professional understanding of the law.

As I understand it, juries explicitly decide whether the law has been broken purely on the basis of what they determine the facts to be. The system is explicitly set up so that no specialist legal knowledge is required - the jury instructions from the court will be along the lines of "if you decide that things x, y & z are true, then you must convict".

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#202

Post by stereolambda »

gambiting wrote: post #158
nostromo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t try to get out of jury duty. Someone’s life is on the line. Suck it up and do your civic duty.

I believe jury duty is an awful way to decide justice and it shouldn't exist. Other countries manage without it just fine. In my opinion it's your civic duty to get out of it and not support it.

Demand for being judged by one's peers is Magna Carta level stuff, and it's also in the American constitution, so people clearly cared about it for centuries. You can see why in principle: the judge is a government official, and with your peers you should have more room for maneuver. I don't think that ensuring that judges are impartial and actually apply law is a solved problem at all. That "other countries manage without it just fine" is a big assumption, ignoring possible corruption and any number of pathologies.

I live in a no jury country and I would probably feel a tiny bit safer with a jury of my peers, even being aware that this also has plenty of flaws. (That being said, I do prefer European inquisitorial system of justice over the adversarial one -- the latter is present in Anglophone countries and prefers reaching a decision over establishing the truth of the matter.) Even in Poland, the hamfisted "reform" of justice that is fought over with the EU does have some nuance to it. The government wants to control the judges, which is obviously against any sane separation of powers, but the public perception is that the previous system of judge corporations was also corrupt.

I do think, at the face of it, that all jurors should be made aware about nullification.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#203

Post by mcv »

gambiting wrote: post #192
celticninja wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples of other countries that don't use jury systems and have better outcomes?

Most EU countries don't use juries, or only use them for the worst crimes(rape/murder) and only in very narrow set of circumstances. "and have better outcomes?" Honesly I have no idea how you'd define what is a "better" outcome.

> Honesly I have no idea how you'd define what is a "better" outcome.

I think less blatant racism or classism in the verdicts would be better. In the US there's no shortage of examples of poor people of colour getting far more severe punishments for crimes for which rich white people get minor punishment or barely a slap on the wrist.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#204

Post by vkou »

watwut wrote: post #165
washbrain wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they can vote equally, there's no guarantee that minority populations will have the numbers to protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority. We haven't even gotten to the "equal access to voting" part here in the States yet, so we have a long long road before we get to the "voting is a good tool for minorities to protect themselves" phase.

The population of blacks in south was pretty large tho. In some states they had majority. The violence was to keep them away from power.

Also, a jury needs a near-unanimous, or unanimous verdict to convict. All it takes is a few pro-lynching jurors, and the accused flies free as a bird.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#205

Post by pas »

Hamuko wrote: post #197
denton-scratch wrote: post #181

The jury's task in a criminal trial is to determine guilt or innocence based on the uncontested facts and the evidence (In the USA, I gather they can also recommend a verdict). That doesn't leave a lot of room for the jury to decide which laws ought to be enforced. I suppose it's reasonable for a jury to decide that a prosecution should not have been brought, even if the criminal act can be shown to have occurred. I…

What is even the point of a jury composed of laymen if their only task is to decipher if a law has been broken? Surely at that point you'd only want lawyers, as in, people with a professional understanding of the law.

Because there's an old convention that then got written on a paper, that now says "a jury of your peers".

In terms of end-to-end "justice system" problems the inefficiency of a jury is a small problem. (As most cases never even see a courtroom. In criminal cases due to plea deals, in civil cases due to settlement, etc.)

Technically anything can be interpreted in two different ways by two people, so even if the judge gives very precise instructions to the jury, they still have a lot of freedom. (And this led to finding murderers not guilty, because the victim was black.) But a bunch of lawyers can be racist too, so that wouldn't have helped much.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#206

Post by vkou »

spoonjim wrote: post #85
daenz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the killing of Ken McElroy[0] >In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots. The DA declined to press charges. An extensive f…

Quoted post unavailable.

That is a great idea. Can I pick that 1%?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#207

Post by jmeister »

_8j50 wrote: post #126
MerelyMortal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only quote from him that I know by heart: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

Wow! I have been saying for a while now that in the US at least the judicial system had no relationship with justice or reason. The false pretense of impartiality and apolitical decision making leads most to believe otherwise.

It’s the job of the legislature to fix the laws and make them aligned with your idea of justice.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#208

Post by vkou »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #186
mattkrause wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, not really. Rule 606 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits a juror from testifying “about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.” [0] Without testimony, how would you make the case for perjury? You can’t force the juror to incriminate the…

> Without testimony, how would you make the case for perjury? You’re almost certainly going to be asked about your ability to make a decision on the basis of the law, and solely the law, during voir dire . If you say yes and then go on to nullify, you perjured yourself.

As a juror, you aren't required to explain your thought process.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#209

Post by Gwypaas »

celticninja wrote: post #183
gambiting wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe jury duty is an awful way to decide justice and it shouldn't exist. Other countries manage without it just fine. In my opinion it's your civic duty to get out of it and not support it.

Examples of other countries that don't use jury systems and have better outcomes?

Systems where taking a plea deal or settling out of court is not the preferred method of ending a trial because both sides distrust the system.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#210

Post by markdown »

roomey wrote: post #148
markdown wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I had no idea the UK had juries. I live in a former colony where we don't have juries and just assumed the same would be true of the UK.

If you don't mind me asking, which colony is that? Would be interesting to know how that came about

Fiji
Post reply on HN