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

401–410 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#401

Post by alistairSH »

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…

For basic traffic enforcement, you're right. However, poor implementation in the US has led to withdrawal of systems in some cities. I'll have to dig up details, but I recall a red-light system that was implemented as a revenue-share with the company contracted to build/maintain the system. That company set the timing of the camera such that it had many false-positives (it was basically triggering on yellow instead of red, IIRC). System was eventually shut down, but people are now rightfully wary of similar systems.

But, my comment wasn't meant to imply traffic is the only place this happens, it was just an easy example. We see the same with (building) code enforcement at all levels from HOA to city/town/county. We see excess policing/enforcement (to the point of infringing on individual rights) in certain neighborhoods and with certain ethnic groups (stop and frisk in NYC, for example).

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#402

Post by the_only_law »

credit_guy wrote: post #267
ALittleLight wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was on a jury when I was young, maybe eighteen, and haven't been on one again. I was disappointed not to get a whodunnit or some complex case. Instead ,I was on a DUI that resulted in a crash with some extra circumstances. The defense was entirely presented at closing and amounted to the claim that the defendant stopped his car right before the crash, let a hitchhiker take the wheel, the hitchhiker caused the crash…

That's quite a funny story. Was that self-defense? If not, is a lawyer ethically allowed to present such a defense?

Wouldn’t be the dumbest thing I’ve heard out of a lawyer.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#403

Post by DocTomoe »

bluGill wrote: post #337
DocTomoe wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally, democracy meant 'all Athenian male unenslaved citizens meet up every now and then to decide by majority whom to banish from the city' -> the exact reason why democracy was a dirty word for classical political philosophers, like Plato: tyranny of the masses was built in from the start. What you describe was an "age of enlightenment"-style idealised version of democracy that lived for a short time before…

The problem is direct democracy is everyone needs to show up at the same time. It is impossible to do this for any modern community of more than 100 people and even going that large is only possible if you limit who has a vote to [white adult males] or some such subgroup that allows someone else (women and children in this example) to take care of everything else that can't be ignored while in the meeting. Once you g…

Direct democracy does not necessitate a 100% participation rate.

It traditionally only means "the electorate decides on topics directly, not with representatives who are not bound in their decisions to their mandate". Again, see Switzerland, which works just fine with direct democratic elections with groups ranging from a few hundred voters on a market square to millions of electors in the country as a whole.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#404

Post by DocTomoe »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #239
DocTomoe wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally, democracy meant 'all Athenian male unenslaved citizens meet up every now and then to decide by majority whom to banish from the city' -> the exact reason why democracy was a dirty word for classical political philosophers, like Plato: tyranny of the masses was built in from the start. What you describe was an "age of enlightenment"-style idealised version of democracy that lived for a short time before…

Democracy was discussed deeply and implanted varyingly after Athens fell. And even then, concepts of free and equal speech were tied to the concept. > that direct democracy thing ... it works for the Swiss We don’t have direct democracy. Our initiative and amendment processes have a referendum component, but it’s tightly moderated by the legislature and requires supermajorities to override it. And to the degree it's…

I tried not to become too technical, given the original claim was that direct democracy does not ever work. You are, of course, right: You have a representative parliamentary system with strong direct democratic elements, which currently is in danger of being destroyed by more conservative elements in your parliamentary system. Given that traditionally Switzerland used these mandates wisely, I hope the fascistoid elements in your government will not be able to go through with that plan.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#405

Post by Overtonwindow »

beeboop wrote: post #395
Overtonwindow wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wasting whose time? Each juror is supposed to decide based on a reasonable doubt, if someone comes in there and says look I think the crime is wrong, and I think this person should Have this verdict, and I’m going to vote that way, if no one goes along with you fine. If they do great, if they don’t, then you have a hung jury. Either way that single person has nullified the verdict. Thus a mistrial.

If anything, the government waste the time of people by bringing cases that should never have been brought to begin with.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#406

Post by scarecrowbob »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #372
pdonis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the people who thought lynching was fine had the same sense of certainty that you have. Which all by itself is enough to refute the claim that such a sense of certainty is sufficient.

To me, any syllogism which tells me I am not qualified to say that lynching is not immoral is probably broken. Rational argumentation is fine but it requires that we start with some reasonable premises. Like any math problem, if you get strange answers it indicates that you're doing the problem wrong. If you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter and you get something like 31.4 you might wanna check you…

And, for what it's worth, this principle that unexpected results indicate an error is quite useful.

I can't edit out the double negative in my first sentence which makes it incoherent (thanks to HN's time out system) but I can expect that most readers would see that and understand it is a grammatical error, and I'd expect that they'd have a some certainty about their reading of that sentence.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#407

Post by simonh »

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…

My apologies, I didn’t make myself clear at all. I was commenting on the judges explanation of his legal powers and responsibilities. There should always be avenues of appeal available. The design of the system isn’t for judges to decide though, that belongs to legislators.

There’s a flaw in the system there, but not with the judge. He’s just explaining his duties according to the law. If you want the law changed, reasonably I think in this case, that’s a political matter not a judicial one.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#408

Post by notch656a »

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…

I've always though the points per unit time measurement system is dumb. Maybe points per 10k miles or something instead. Bill who gets into a wreck and drives like a bat out of hell the 3 times of the year he manages to break out of his schizophrenia disorder enough to drive could get only 9 points, or 3 points on every occasion he drives. Whereas the responsible driver who drives non-stop racking up 100,000 miles in a year and accidently driving through just 4 bad speed-trap towns by accident could end up with 12 points despite being far safer.

IMO the points system is as much about punishing people who depend on driving a lot as much as it is about punishing unsafe drivers.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#409

Post by pdonis »

weaksauce wrote: post #130
pdonis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the people who thought lynching was fine had the same sense of certainty that you have. Which all by itself is enough to refute the claim that such a sense of certainty is sufficient.

I think the golden rule is usually sufficient. almost nobody wants to be lynched. likewise stolen from or harmed. the world is a better place with people abiding by that

This is fine, but it's not basing claims about what is good or bad on just your personal opinion or feeling. It's basing it on a general principle that is supposed to apply equally to everybody. That is indeed the only way of escaping the merry go round of shifting personal opinions and feelings. But it is also not perfect: not all ethical and moral issues can be resolved this way, because now you have the problem of which general principles should be used. Not everybody agrees with the golden rule, just as not everybody agrees that lynching is bad.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#410

Post by pdonis »

Ma8ee wrote: post #246
pdonis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are good reasons why we try to minimise how much of law enforcement that are left to peoples discretion. I don't know where you're getting this from. Practically all of law enforcement is left to people's discretion. The people exercising the discretion just aren't members of juries in most cases.

No, they are police, prosecutors and judges. And that is one of the problems with the US system of justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. As it works now, the white upper class kid gets a slap on the wrist after raping an unconscious woman, while the black kids go to prison for minor possession. And since the people in charge don’t have worry about the laws being applied to them, they introduce outrageous laws. Th…

Thank you for agreeing with my point.
Post reply on HN