321–330 of 449 posts
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."
A terrible, self serving quote, given that it was spoken by a supreme judge. It was always a court of men, justice Holmes, not law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cops, prosecutors, DAs, judges, mayors and governors all have varying authority to "control what crimes are punished", in addition to who gets punished and the severity of that punishment. In that context, it doesn't seem so strange for juries to have some authority too. All this latitude among different actors in the justice system just shows how having an incredibly vast number of "crimes" on the books guarantees l…
Making everything illegal and then selectively enforcing it means that there is no Rule of Law.
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.
The jury of your peers is truly the last word in the United States, and many other common law nations. This is not perfect, but it is better than the alternative.
It's a check on the prosecutor's power that has been gradually eroded by the legal system. Grand juries, similarly, have been eroded in their abilities to check prosecutor power.
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…
There are practical and logistical problems of course, but there is no evidence of it actually failing. An educated population can decide to defer decisions and a majority probably would. At least the societies ready for it.
I think parliamentary democracy becomes more interchangeable with technocracies with certain groups carefully gate keeping for their in-group. This would fail at least as predictably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically it can, because jury trial is expensive, less predictable and carries much longer sentence then plea bargain. So, 94% or so of cases end without trial. The state says "take 3 years in plea bargain or risk 15 years and huge debt in jury trial".
If you're going to jail for 15 years, isn't running up a debt with your lawyers the least of your concerns?
Jury nullification is just one manifestation of good-ol'-boy-ism. Good-ol'-boy-ism is a good thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson without making him a felon and ruining his future. Good-ol'-boyism is a horrible thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson, making him a felon and ruining his future. I have personally benefited from the former. I don't know how to reconci…
Part of the problem is that there's so much policing of "social issues" that aren't what we traditionally see as crimes. Still even for people that are arguably pretty bad eg. street thugs, repeat DUI offenders, ect., I'm not sure of the wisdom of this policy... and that's not even considering small time first offenders (also ignoring our most serious crimes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a prison abolitionist who believes the police are generally too powerful and have too many incentives to lie under oath. If a lawyer asked me about these things during jury selection I strongly suspect they'd move me out.
Expect to be grilled on this subject, including being asked to cite instances where you’ve taken actions (protested, worked for legislation, volunteered, etc) based on those beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a fantastic quote. I had to read up on it. So, from my very limited understanding, the point is kinda like you have to pass the legal steps before you have a chance at getting justice. Rules of evidence, Miranda warnings, whatever. I think it's sorta like you have to pass the compiler before you get a chance at a working program. Now, I'm going to strain this analogy, what do you do when there's a bug in the…
Patching the compiler means getting a law passed, not bypassing the legal system.
So, while you can work around the compiler issue, you cannot really remedy the legal system for your case, which could be deleterious.
Jury nullification is just one manifestation of good-ol'-boy-ism. Good-ol'-boy-ism is a good thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson without making him a felon and ruining his future. Good-ol'-boyism is a horrible thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson, making him a felon and ruining his future. I have personally benefited from the former. I don't know how to reconci…
However, the first amendment is not to be tossed aside when inconvenient.
The act itself is not preventable without invading the sanctity of the jury room.
The scenario you present shows no relation to the concept of jury nullification presented here; unjust laws versus yours; untouchable persons. One is a protest of society, the other a protection of a group.