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

391–400 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#391

Post by kasey_junk »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #327
kasey_junk wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may catch someone trying to just bluff their way through things and fumbles on obvious lies, but if you actually believe this kind of thing and still say "nothing" I'm guessing they'll believe.

There are certainly beliefs you can hold that will get you removed. But the courts have heard them all before. Further those beliefs are pretty far out on the scales.

Just saying you don’t trust police isn’t enough.

You are more likely to get kicked off for a specific profession than a stated belief.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#392

Post by duxup »

ninkendo wrote: post #68
j-bos wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's stereotype that neither prosecuters nor defense attorneys(ies?) want critical thinkers on the jury. Limits their powers of influence.

HN readership is large enough that we’ve pretty much regressed to the mean with respect to critical thinking. I don’t think HN readers are statistically better than average here, there’s just too many of us for that to be possible.

Can confirm, reads HN, been on jury, i am pretty dumb.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#393

Post by duxup »

j-bos wrote: post #22
duxup wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I served on a jury. Can’t imagine why any given HN user wouldn’t be allowed…

There's stereotype that neither prosecuters nor defense attorneys(ies?) want critical thinkers on the jury. Limits their powers of influence.

What is interesting is I have sever lawyers in my family. Criminal, corporate, and otherwise. All do trial work.

They all say no matter how many test juries (their clients sometimes actually pay for them to try out arguments on a group of people), or how much jury study they do…. it is hard to predict how a juror will act / be influenced based on demographics.

My limited experience was similar, folks were not super predictable.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#394

Post by sophacles »

post_break wrote: post #378
sophacles wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do I gain from lying? I get paid $6 for each day of jury duty. It's 50 miles round trip per day. Depending on traffic that does not cover my gas. Your comment adds nothing to this discussion.

When did I accuse you of lying?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#395

Post by beeboop »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #313
nwiswell wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the same thing. Nullification is when the ENTIRE jury votes not guilty, producing an acquittal and double jeopardy protection for the accused.

I disagree. Jury nullification sounds plural, but a single juror can nullify everything; I’m voting this way because I think the law is wrong. That decision has nullified the process, and could lead to a hung jury. Or that one person could convince everyone else. I think you might be confusing the hole with the part, and not grasping the power of a single juror.

A single juror cannot nullify - they can cause a hung jury which then results in a retrial, where it is mostly likely not going to contain a juror that advocates for jury nullification. If you cannot create consensus to nullify then you're most likely just wasting time and money of everyone involved and clogging up the legal system for other people who have a right to speedy trials

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#396

Post by _8j50 »

koheripbal wrote: post #261
_8j50 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! I have been saying for a while now that in the US at least the judicial system had no relationship with justice or reason. The false pretense of impartiality and apolitical decision making leads most to believe otherwise.

Reason is the foundation of the application of law. It is absolutely taught and practiced in the judicial system. You can see it measured in every judicial review process. Justice is much more subjective and is the domain of prosecutors and the executive branch.

You are talking about schools and ideals not reality.

The checks and balances that prevent the judicial system from abandoning reason and justice have failed and as a result it is very partial and political with interpretations of the law according to opinion superseding common and reasonable understanding of justice. A person may have subjective views on justice, sure but what I am saying is even that is not being applied. A judge will not disregard an attempt to interpret law unjustly (e.g.:asset forfeiture) or attempt to give a reason as to why it is unjust, simply that the law is valid and implied injustice is correct (that is to say, the judge will not consider an interpretation law because that would imply the legislature had unjust intent according to subjective understanding). Reason is supposed to be a corner stone of the system but where public liars and corrupt people are made judges the result is what you have now.

I am sure there are many in the profession that genuinely pursue justice and apply reason over whatever bullshit they can convince each other but their minority voice is drowned out it seems.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#397

Post by mrguyorama »

elliekelly wrote: post #384
simonh wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actu…

I believe that hundreds of definitely guilty people should go free to prevent one innocent person from going to prison.

Other people feel the opposite way, which is how you get the above statements.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#398

Post by mrguyorama »

tehwebguy wrote: post #282
gambiting wrote: post #158

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.

Ah so baseless ad hominem is fine now?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#399

Post by infamouscow »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #355
infamouscow wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The only way for that to happen is people elect representatives reflecting the will of the people. If the people elect representatives that don't reflect the will of the people, they can hold their elected representatives accountable and vote for someone else in the next election cycle. But if people continue to re-elect officials that demonstrate not being aligned with their constituents, the people only have themselves to blame. It really is that simple.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#400

Post by alistairSH »

ben_w wrote: post #365
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…

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). (Ou…

Generally, our licenses use similar points systems, but the actual implementation varies at the state level. 1-2 big speeding tickets (reckless driving, which can also be criminal) could be enough for a temporary suspension, but usually you'd need several in a row.
Post reply on HN