Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case • Hacker News Board

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#361

Post by bombcar » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #293

bombcar wrote: post #4

If jury nullification doesn’t exist, then juries are pointless

The vast majority of juries in the US do not know about nullification nor do they discover it on their own. Unless you are claiming that juries are pointless in almost all cases in the current system, observation suggests that nullification is not a prerequisite to non-pointless juries.

The existence of nullification is the prerequisite (because if it doesn't exist, it means there is a mechanism for overriding/punishing the jury if they "get it wrong" which would undermine the purpose of the jury).

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#362

Post by ben_w » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #331

ben_w wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Necessary but not sufficient. Weed is a category B drug in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_Kingdom This means "with penalties for unlicenced dealing, unlicenced production and unlicenced trafficking of up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. The maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is five years in prison and an unlimited fine." The police absolutely try to enforce thi…

So that shouldn't be a law then, the argument goes.

I think it shouldn't be a law partly for that reason, but it's definitely an example of needing to go further than just repealing the laws nobody can be bothered to enforce.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#363

Post by boring_twenties » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

lesuorac wrote: post #249

refurb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my experience at all. And remember, what's good for the prosecutor, is bad for the defense, and vice versa. And each side gets only a handful of dismissals. You waste it on some guy you think is "too smart" and you might not be able to use it on that guy who thinks your client is guilty already.

I think pretty trivially whats good for the prosecutor is not necessarily bad for the defense. i.e. if somebody says they're going to flip a coin to make their decision is going to be bad for both of them. (unless one side thinks they have absolutely no chance). Not a lawyer but I think you have unlimited dismissals [1] its just there's a limit to the number of ones you don't have to provide a reason for. And I'm als…

> (unless one side thinks they have absolutely no chance).

Wouldn't one side having a 49% chance be enough for them to prefer the coin flip?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#364

Post by namelessoracle » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:15 PM UTC

Lendal wrote: post #306

parkingrift wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The proper remedy for bad governance is to elect different public officials to represent you. Jury nullification is far too weak, even as tinfoil hats go. Sure it's a thing and it's not illegal. It's just silly and unstable, and it should never be depended upon by society to replace good legislation and executive power. Besides the fact that this ruling was about free speech rights, not jury nullification. You can sa…

"The proper remedy for bad governance is to elect different public officials to represent you."

After 4 years you can attempt to fix it. Though if the person who you elect actually tries to fix it there's a good chance they will be stopped by the courts from doing so.....

E.G. Let's say bad politician hires bad people who implement bad policies. New politician comes in and tries to fire bad people, they sue saying its political persecution and they haven't done anything wrong and haven't violated the standards of their job or their contract. Court upholds it. They continue implementing bad policies, to the point of snubbing their nose at the person who got elected. What is the remedy here?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#365

Post by ben_w » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #304

alistairSH wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

We absolutely could do that. I don't know how US driving license work, but in the UK a speeding ticket gets you 3 penalty points on your license, where 12 points in 3 years gets you disqualified from driving: https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties

On this basis, the only people who would be allowed to drive a month after perfect enforcement starts, would be people who don't drive (plus the Queen because monarchy).

(Outside the hypothetical, the imperfection of the UK's speed cameras is such that the only ticket I've received was for an event that happened six months after I sold the car).

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#366

Post by OrvalWintermute » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #286

vintermann wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, "has to"? The point is that judges have discretion. They might, or they might not. They don't have to do very much, even when on the wrong side of both elected politicians and justice. And sure, in an ideal world things would get fixed in the legislative branch. But can you blame anyone for going where so much of actual power is?

> What do you mean, "has to"? The point is that judges have discretion. Well, the justice system has a number of types of discretion: (1) Determining facts. Two first-hand accounts disagree, which do we find most believable? (2) Discretion granted by lawmakers. This person has been found guilty of X and the law calls for a prison sentence of 3 to 15 years depending on the facts of the case, how long should the senten…

I think you touch with (3) on the awesome and terrible power of a prosecutor, who execute the law.

It brings up related two latin phrases and one in spanish

de minimis non curat lex / de minimis non curat praetor [1]

De los asuntos intrascendentes no se ocupa el magistrado

On one side we could have the "hanging prosecutor" and the other extreme, a Chesa Boudin refusing to bring cases forward.

Selecting prosecutors with the wisdom to know where the harsh application of the law is needed, and where electing not to bring forward a case is essential, or, a diversion to a non-criminal path is a must.

Discretion & wisdom are essential.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#367

Post by norwalkbear » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

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 a straw man not addressing the article at all

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#368

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:24 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #304

alistairSH wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

The people do not support lawmakers who pass laws they do not want. Making traffic enforcement automatic would only be supported by the most strict law-abiding drivers, which is probably a minority. Your elected officials will not create laws that would cause you to vote them out of office. So, we don't have those laws, because we don't want them.

> 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.

Yep, this is absolutely what happens. Very hard to get people to self-sacrifice and cooperate if there isn't enough momentum.

One of my favorite things to do on 55mph PA highways near Philly is to go the speed limit. All other drivers on that road are going 75-85mph. They treat you like a terrible person for going the speed limit. But eventually one person slows down behind you, then another, and after about 45 minutes, there's a line of cars going the speed limit, while people zooming by wonder if they should slow down.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#369

Post by snovv_crash » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #14

daenz wrote: post #6

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.

"They" could also use this to prevent prosecution for abortion. The knife cuts both ways.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#370

Post by sophacles » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 3:32 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #316

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.

The court for me is 40 minutes away. They make you park in a parking lot down town that isn't safe and you have to walk or take some shuttle to the courthouse. Can't take my gun with me for obvious reasons. Spend my gas getting there. Then if the parking lot gets full I have to pay for parking as well. All for me to be sent home because I know what jury nullification is, don't believe prostitution is a crime, or mino…

You get compensated for your jury duty - not well compensated, but enough to cover gas for sure. The rest of your whining is likely just as factually false - get over yourself.