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

351–360 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#351

Post by jfoutz »

snovv_crash wrote: post #260
jfoutz wrote: post #132

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.

Ah, yeah. It's an analogy, and argument by analogy always fails, because the two things are different, and you can't really hide those differences.

I'd say getting your PR accepted is like passing the law. Locally hacking up the compiler to get this one stupid executable to work is like jury nullification.

Argument by analogy sucks, but hopefully this gets the spirit of what I'm trying to say across. I'm going to drop that analogy now.

Back to the original quote, everybody has to follow the laws. If we don't follow the laws, there is no hope for justice. Jurys rarely if ever have to explain what they were thinking, and the best a judge can do is declare a mistrial and start over. Sometimes the law is fucked up, or it shouldn't be applied in a specific circumstance. And a jury can do that. This is of course ripe for abuse, if my buddy is on the jury of my trial, maybe I don't get convicted - but there are a bunch of laws around jury selection so hopefully that doesn't happen to often.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#352

Post by cyphar »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #312
cyphar wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many flavours of representative democracy. It depend what is being represented. In the British system that’s constituencies. In proportional systems, that’s political parties. Neither are particularly more or less inherently legitimate IMHO. I would consider 10% of a country voting for a party as first preference but less than 0.7% of parliament seats (by which I mean a single seat) being allocated to the…

> I would consider 10% of a country voting for a party as first preference but less than 0.7% of parliament seats (by which I mean a single seat) being allocated to them (as was the case in Australia until the last election where it's still around 2% representation) to be unrepresentative by any reasonable definition of the word. Is this is a consistent outcome or an anomaly?

It is a consistent outcome, the recent election is an anomaly. The explanation for why this is the case is a bit complicated but the crux is that only one candidate can win in each seat and while we have preferential voting, the preferences only matter in each race -- and if you aren't in the top two on first preferences then you won't win that seat (nor any other seat where that is the case). It would be easily possible for them to have 0% representation, it just so happens that the Greens party leader's electorate is incredibly pro-Green and so he gets ~47% of the first preference vote, which is unusually high and makes him win the seat easily.

Our upper house is far more representative because each state and territory has multiple seats and thus you can get a more representative outcome.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#353

Post by selimthegrim »

shadowgovt wrote: post #291
masklinn wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the south it used to be an entire town of hundreds would show up for a lynching and take pictures and a picnic below the tree. Emmett Till’s river site memorial plaque had to be replaced by a bulletproof 500lbs one to slow down its vandalism. In 2019. Before that it had to be replaced 3 times, once because it was removed and tosse in the river, and the other 2 times due to damage from being shot at. It had been fi…

It's really worth noting how much the nature of law in the US changed after the Civil War. So much so that you can think of post-1868 US as a fundamentally different country, legally, than pre-1868. The big change is that the Civil War demonstrated the shortcomings of state-level interpretation of law, and with the 14th Amendment, a wide swath of such interpretation was barred. And, indeed, plenty of people think the…

These United States vs The United States

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#354

Post by OrvalWintermute »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #326
freeopinion wrote: post #319

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…

Why doesn't anyone think that ruining people's future regardless of age is a horrible solution to social problems? 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…

>Why doesn't anyone think that ruining people's future regardless of age is a horrible solution to social problems?

I concur, I think ruining people's futures can be a horrible thing. Depending on the crime, I do think that what we see in some of Europe around "Right to be forgotten" for crimes is a good path forward.

I do not want to advocate for laws that firmly set someone onto a path of crime because of some youthful indiscretions, or, that forever treats a person as a pariah because of something that happened 30 years ago.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#355

Post by raxxorraxor »

infamouscow wrote: post #345
raxxorraxor wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly is, especially because without serving justice the law loses its raison d'être. But on the other hand there are reasons why members of the judiciary need to interpret the law to the letter. If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility.

> If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility. That rarely happens because nearly everyone votes based on what politicians say rather than the substance of their policies. The people always get the government they deserve.

Of course that is the ideal case. Part of the separation of powers that binds judges to the law and just laws should be passed by political bodies.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#356

Post by namelessoracle »

jfoutz wrote: post #132
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."

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…

Taking this analogy further. Jury nullification is like manually manipulating the database after the program keeps crashing out to make sure the customer gets what they need right now.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#357

Post by pandemicsoul »

dwringer wrote: post #317
BowBun wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just being contrarian to your comment, but I've always thought the US and other countries are silly for not automating basic traffic enforcement. 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…

A lot of places in the US have tried out automated speed traps and red light cameras. Some still use them AFAIK. But what's common is that infractions are so widespread that there's a massive backlash and the programs get cancelled. There was an automatic speed trap on the interstate just south of Pittsburgh a few months ago, set up along side some temporary construction with reduced speed limits. A few weeks later t…

Not to mention they also cause accidents. People who see a red-light camera flash often hit the brakes, causing people behind them to rear-end them. There were a number of red-light cameras removed in the U.S. once it became clear they were snarling traffic on a weekly basis because of that.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#358

Post by curiousgal »

ww-picard-do wrote: post #320
curiousgal wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, it is ok for people to lie in court because politicians do it?

Yes. Politicians are representatives of the people afterall.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#359

Post by namelessoracle »

freeopinion wrote: post #319

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…

This is fairly insidious, like it's only the "good old boys" who do this. (Good Old Boy being coded language for white people)

https://wsvn.com/news/local/broward/foreperson-3-jurors-unwi...

You can find more examples. Jury nullification happens across the spectrum.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#360

Post by bombcar »

frumper wrote: post #343
cogman10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, judges can overturn jury verdicts. That will be appealed to a higher court (which means they need a REALLY good reason to do it). The most common place for this to happen is in civil court. A jury can come back with "11ty billion dollars" and the judge can decide "Ok, they got a little overzealous with that, $100".

Is there a case in the US where a jury found the defendant not guilty in criminal court and the judge overturned that?

The judge can effectively overturn a "guilty" verdict but cannot overturn a "not guilty" because of double-jeopardy (though I suppose a judge could force/rule a mistrial).
Post reply on HN