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

381–390 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#381

Post by b3morales »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #160
mcherm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.

I sort of think that people who are willing to use jury nullification would just vote not guilty if they didn't know the option existed.

Not if they are instructed or for other reasons believe that their job is to make a strictly legal finding. I.e. to decide only the question "did $DEFENDANT violate $LAW". As opposed to the broader questions: whether $LAW is good; whether it is being applied fairly, and so on. It's not uncommon for people to disagree with an outcome but decide it's acceptable because of the way it was reached: "This sucks but it's the rules/my duty". Jury nullification makes considering the rightness of the outcome part of the rules.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#382

Post by denton-scratch »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #273
Hamuko wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The task of the jury is the interpretation of the various evidence to decide the facts of the case. The task of the lawyers is to present the evidence. The task of the judge is to decide the law of the case.

> The task of the judge is to decide the law of the case.

I don't think that's right.

You express that as if "the law" is always clear and uncontestable. Reality is the opposite; few laws are drafted to be clear and uncontestable.

The task of the judge is to administer the case. He/she decides what evidence is admissible, what utterances by the advocates are forbidden/permissible and so on. The advocates and the judge may have three different opinions about what the law is, and so it becomes a question for the jury.

So the judge is the authority on the law concerning how cases may be conducted; but not on other legal specialties.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#383

Post by denton-scratch »

pas wrote: post #205
Hamuko wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> an old convention that then got written on a paper

That would be Magna Carta, I think. The word you're looking for is "parchment", not "paper". When it was drafted, it wasn't an "old convention" - it was an innovation.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#384

Post by elliekelly »

simonh wrote: post #347
elliekelly wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me Scalia’s infamous Troy Davis dissent[1]: > This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocenc…

I think that’s fine, as is the court of law not court of justice line, in context. The court should be focused on the law and process to ensure that it is as fair and objective as possible. However perfect fairness and objectivity is not realistically possible. Where justice comes in is the jury room, and that’s why juries should be free to find whatever outcome they choose, as the representatives of the sovereign ci…

So if someone is convicted of a crime in a perfectly fair and objective process and we later find conclusive and indisputable evidence that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and entirely innocent it’s perfectly acceptable that they be forced to serve their sentence? Including a death sentence? It’s perfectly acceptable that they have no right to appeal their conviction or sentence on a showing of actual innocence?

I think that’s very easy for some people to hand wave away as just “a cost of doing business” in a system of justice but is shockingly and appallingly costly for the people who are unfairly burdened with shouldering that “cost” for the rest of us.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#385

Post by ogogmad »

andsoitis wrote: post #342
shadowgovt wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time in England that theft was punishable by the death penalty. When I was younger, I learned that changed because of behavior of criminals under incentives: when stealing the bread is punishable by death, you may as well kill the baker too, to cover your tracks and maximize survival odds. That might be true, but the more specific issue England (specifically, London) ran into is that trials for theft were…

> There was a time in England that theft was punishable by the death penalty. Having death as penalty for theft is pretty extreme in the first place. Even countries that only chop of your hand seem highly advanced in contrast.

They even a used a version of the guillotine before Monsieur Guillotin to do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Gibbet

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#386

Post by salawat »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #151
zapdrive wrote: post #110

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…

Jury nullification isn't just an evil jury frustrating the heroic pursuit of truth and justice for the land.

It's also a jury looking at a fellow citizen getting hung out to dry by a crooked/ambitious DA and law enforcement entity, or shifty looking DEA agent and saying "Enough is enough. This is overreach, dirty, and wrong, and every last one of you knows it."

Nothing is a given about how our system works. Justice and politics are constantly evolving things. Each process serving as inputs to the others.

We try to create a world of predictable consequences. We try to minimize the number of places surprising things can pop up from. However, deep down, we bear forward the history of abuses by systems past, which is why we maintain these safety valves, even if they are infrequently used, lest our vigilance wane that they need to be used again.

It's why jury duty is the most important damn responsibility in the country.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#387

Post by JacobThreeThree »

digdugdirk wrote: post #332
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…

That said, if the good-ol'-boy-ism exists, wouldn't you prefer it exist in the hands of a group of disparate individuals chosen (mostly) at random? I'd prefer that situation over it solely existing in the hands of a few police/judges/etc. with incredible power in deciding the future of the lives of those without power.

Yeah, good-ol'-boy-ism can be present in any part of the justice system. There's no reason to believe it would be worse among the jury pool than, for instance, among prosecutors, judges and law enforcement.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#388

Post by [deleted] »

arlort wrote: post #188
IncRnd wrote: post #48

Now, we need to pay attention to Presidents, DoJ Attorneys, and District Attorneys who pick and choose which laws to enforce, based upon their politics. It's interesting how they aren't getting charged for those actions.

They aren't because it's the whole idea behind the separation of the executive from the legislative power.

[deleted]

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#389

Post by addingnumbers »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #195
addingnumbers wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the definition of "self-proclaimed" includes agreeing with popular proclamation, who is ever proclaimed but not self-proclaimed? You've rendered the "self-" prefix redundant, in which case why include it?

Winning an election is not a proclamation or any other kind of indication that somebody is an expert in law, governing, or anything else except winning elections. I can't work out how you've made that leap.

Election to office is an indication that voters generally agree with your claims of expertise, and thus are proclaiming you an expert.

Voters who want someone in office who is not an expert at governing vote for someone who doesn't claim to be an expert.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#390

Post by kasey_junk »

andsoitis wrote: post #349
lokar wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I explained I would never impose the death penalty (it was 1st degree murder) and I was excused

I wonder whether that strongly suggests that most people (everyone?) who serves on the jury for a 1st degree murder case then believes the death penalty is just.

My jury was a 1st degree case but the prosecution was not seeking the death penalty and my state has a de facto ban on them.
Post reply on HN