301–310 of 449 posts
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.
Quoted post unavailable.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about we start with not making stuff illegal that we don't want to enforce?
But society wants selective enforcement. Speeding laws are good when the stop that guy from endangering my kids. Or when they generate revenue from tourists. Those same laws are awful when they inconvenience me.
Red light cameras should effectively catch 95%+ of people who blow through them. Speeding cameras (that are actually on, looking at you NYC) that are super visible are a known deterrent to speeding in Europe. Even parking - in some modern garages they have sensors to tell you when spots are full/empty. Why can't they use similar tech for parking tickets, street cleaning, etc?
I feel like I wouldn't be upset about rule enforcement if I knew everyone was more or less following them. What makes me ignore rules is when I see people taking advantage of them over and over without repercussions. Then, introducing human elements where the cop gets to decide who to ticket adds a bunch of bias that we haven't been able to correct. It's one of the countless examples of humans over-complicating things to the point of dysfunction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it perjury to lie in this case?
I don't understand what the big deal about perjury is. You have politicians lying under oath all the time and having 0 punishments despite the huge ramifications of those lies. Why should the "small time" liars be punished.
I don't care if he was guilty of Perjury - his "crime" only hurt Hillary...
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.
If you think jury nullification is a potential problem just wait until you hear that district attorneys have almost absolute authority to decide what crimes are punished. One person can unilaterally dictate that petty theft is no longer a crime, for example. In that lens I don’t believe jury nullification is much of a problem.
Besides the fact that this ruling was about free speech rights, not jury nullification. You can say all you want outside a courthouse as long as you're not disrupting the legal system or trying to sway a particular jury in a specific case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if "the vast majority of citizens thinks something is a good thing", shouldn't it be legal in the first place? Because democracy.
> if "the vast majority of citizens thinks something is a good thing", shouldn't it be legal in the first place? Because democracy Sort of. It’s tyranny of the majority [1]. The meaning of democracy has changed over millennia. Classically, democracy encompasses “freedom of assembly, association, property rights, freedom of religion and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the argument advocates of direct democracy generally support, but no actual democratic systems fully implement direct democracy. In practice what we generally have is representative democracy, where we delegate the power to make laws, and make and implement policy to representatives. Those representatives have personal moral responsibility for the laws and decisions they make and are sovereign individuals in t…
> That’s the argument advocates of direct democracy generally support, but no actual democratic systems fully implement direct democracy. To be fair, Switzerland comes very close. The public can pass initiatives or constitutional amendments without government intervention through public votes, and the few Swiss people I know consider this to be the primary political system in Switzerland (not the representative elect…
Representative democracy doesn’t require a “precise percentage match of party representation …”, but direct democracy is explicitly defined as a system in which there are no representatives.
> especially with broken voting systems that are not even remotely representative such as in the US, UK, and most of the world
This is hyperbole. The US system is pretty representative, and the extent to which it isn’t has very little to do with the voting system and much more to do with incentives (elected officials are beholden to their corporate backers rather than their constituents) and to a lesser extent, our two party system.
In the UK jury nullification came into the spotlight at the beginning of this year when four people who helped topple a statue of a slave trader in Bristol were found not guilty by a jury, even though they admitted doing so and there was video & photo evidence. The jury decided that they had acceptable reasons for their actions. [1] The reaction from the right wing government and its supporters was barely short of ap…
> Jury nullification is one of the strengths of the jury system I personally find jury nullification as the ultimate form of democracy.
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.