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

411–420 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#411

Post by pdonis »

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…

> Rational argumentation is fine but it requires that we start with some reasonable premises.

Yes, but you aren't doing that. You aren't deriving the conclusion that lynching is wrong from some reasonable premises. You're just asserting it. Another poster downthread did offer a reasonable premise, the golden rule, from which the conclusion that lynching is wrong can be derived. But that doesn't completely solve the problem either; see further comments below.

> if you've "refuted" the idea that racially-based lynchings are universally morally impermissible

This claim is already refuted by human history.

> you might really wanna look at your math

You might really wanna consider that ethics and morality are not math. You can't establish ethical and moral claims simply by deduction. You have to get people to agree to them--or you have to impose them on people by force (and then you have to deal with the ethical and moral problem of justifying such use of force). Even if you have premises that you think are reasonable that support your ethical and moral claims, you still have to get other people to agree to the premises. That's why ethics and morality are hard.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#412

Post by pdonis »

washbrain wrote: post #129
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.

Yes, they did. But we've improved as a species. We may not recognize what our descendents will consider barbaric in our behavior, but we can be the ratchet that prevents us from repeating the barbarism of our forbears.

> we've improved as a species

This is arguing in a circle. It's only an "improvement" for someone who already agrees with your ethical and moral claim.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#413

Post by johnnyanmac »

credit_guy wrote: post #266
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."

First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about laws not justice. That may be so, but if that's the case, that's pretty sad, not something to be proud of.

Justice is an ideal, Law is the compromise taking justice into account. Oftentimes justice may be blocked for the exact reason the parent comment outlies; you have good intentions but the long term ramifications are abused to bring anti-justice.

e.g. this is party why the death penalty is so unevenly implemented. Not because some or most people genuinely feel no crime is worth killing a criminal over. But because there are many issues over an irreversible sentence like death when the evidence isn't 100% ironclad.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#414

Post by Spooky23 »

Zak wrote: post #194
Spooky23 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the case. I served on a jury with a very surprised former deputy US Attorney. In general, they don’t like technical people on technical cases. My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked.

I imagine it being the side that isn't confident in its technical position that doesn't like technical people on juries. Usually, there's a limited number each side can dismiss without cause. To dismiss more than that, they have to convince the judge that the juror will not honestly decide the case according to the evidence and the law.

It’s more that they don’t want specialized knowledge spoiling the deliberation.

If I’m an expert in cellular towers, you don’t want me contradicting the expert on cellular towers testimony on the basis of the magic knowledge that I claim to have.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#415

Post by pas »

denton-scratch wrote: post #383
pas wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was thinking about the US constitution, as the convention was already old by then. Of course it's much better than having the local lord be the judge.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#416

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

> almost nobody wants to be lynched

To illustrate why even reasoning from general principles has issues, consider: are you also against punishing people who commit crimes, on the grounds that almost nobody wants to be punished?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#417

Post by dang »

spoonjim wrote: post #85
daenz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the killing of Ken McElroy[0] >In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots. The DA declined to press charges. An extensive f…

Quoted post unavailable.

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately, and I don't want to have to ban you again.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note these two:

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#418

Post by washbrain »

kasey_junk wrote: post #391
spywaregorilla wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, I want to serve on juries. I just know my political beliefs are genuine, sincerely held, and quite leftist for America.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#419

Post by bobthechef »

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#420

Post by washbrain »

pdonis wrote: post #412
washbrain wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they did. But we've improved as a species. We may not recognize what our descendents will consider barbaric in our behavior, but we can be the ratchet that prevents us from repeating the barbarism of our forbears.

> we've improved as a species This is arguing in a circle. It's only an "improvement" for someone who already agrees with your ethical and moral claim.

Disagree, cultural norms are not just formless things that can come and go entirely without context. We can never have a discussion about the morality of slavery without the historical context.
Post reply on HN