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

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#431

Post by bryanrasmussen » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 5:02 AM UTC

b3morales wrote: post #381

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

sure I guess there would be people who would think like that, but not sure what percentage, if it were me and I were instructed to make a strict legal finding and I thought the law was wrong I would say not guilty when it came time to vote and would not be swayed.

But maybe I'm an outlier like that. I guess also its rather conceited of me, but that's the way it is.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#432

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 10:26 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #368

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…

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 eve…

As someone who used to drive heavy equipment that topped out around 60mph on flat ground I agree with the other drivers. You are a terrible person. If you used your rear view mirrors you would see that there's a constant cluster fuck of people cutting each other off trying to get out from behind you. This creates a bunch of unnecessary danger. And for what? So you can get some cheap virtue points from internet authoritarians with a justice boner? To say it boggles the mind that you think your behavior is defensible let along brag worthy is an understatement. I hope you cross paths with someone predisposed to violent road rage so that two dangerous people may be removed from the road without any innocent people being harmed.

Drive the same speed as the other traffic or take the bus. It's safer for everyone that way.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#433

Post by koheripbal » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 12:29 PM UTC

_8j50 wrote: post #396

koheripbal wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

You are conflating the judicial system with enforcement authorities.

Judges very often do reject charges and procedures brought to them by the enforcement authorities. This separation of power is evident if you ever sit in on proceedings (many courts allow and encourage the public to sit and watch).

Enforcement authority is executive branch and answerable to the elected officials. If you don't like asset forfeiture - ask the mayor why he allows it. You may discover that your fellow residents don't agree with you.

Judicial review panels are what judges endure in their tenure where panels of judges review how frequently their rulings are overturned in appeal. The rationale of their rulings are disputed and their tenure as a judge can be removed if they're found to intentionally skirt the law by their peers.

This is how the system works. Do you have specific suggestions to make it better, or are you just advocating we burn everything down?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#434

Post by bluGill » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 12:50 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #403

bluGill wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have less than 100% participation though there is risk that the needs of those who cannot participate (here referring those who would like to, as oppose to those who wouldn't even) are overridden by those who do.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#435

Post by P_I_Staker » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:24 PM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #102

mcherm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I used to think of this as an utter failure of the system, but lingering on this for a while: if the vast majority of citizens (= people who can meaningfully participate in the society) thinks lynching is a good thing, the jury nullification is only a step behind making lynching OK in the books for that group. Of course there could be upper laws blocking them from making it an official stance, but it really feels lik…

The issue is that the American people are so far gone, and even more so back in the day, that allowing to process to work results in the persecution of people. This has been proven time and time again.

The process as we imagine it simply can't work under these conditions. The people are too deranged, and like misbehaving children, need to be contained.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#436

Post by P_I_Staker » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:26 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #122

hedora wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How it actually works (based on serving in jury selection pools): Lawyer: Are members of your profession stereotypically capable of independent critical thought? Juror: Yes? Lawyer: Dismissed. (They just ask for professions and maybe educational background then infer the rest.)

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.

Generally, the issue is that the person has specialized knowledge that one side or the other inevitably doesn't want on the jury.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#437

Post by P_I_Staker » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

doctorzook wrote: post #23

bombcar wrote: post #4

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

That's just not true, though. I say that without taking a position on the merits of jury nullification. Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc. When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury…

I agree with the OP, but also you to some extent. I think juries are a paradox. It doesn't make sense to use them as they're intended. The only way it makes sense is with nullification, in my opinion.

Jury nullification is ignoring the law for any reason. In fact, it seems like the normal, "classical" interpretation is to find not guilty to laws you don't agree with. It's also used for people that did it, but the jury sympathizes with them. Otherwise, it could be they think the penalties are just unfair.

All of these things are jury nullification.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#438

Post by MichaelZuo » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 1:59 PM UTC

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #430

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The organization of society is not outside our control. We've been architecting society for 1000s of years based on what has worked and what hasn't in years past. We aren't just along for the ride although that is a convenient excuse to do nothing and make no effort.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting to "do nothing and make no effort" - That's a strawman and false dichotomy. Sure, we can generally try to do more of what works and less of what doesn't. But usually the type of people who want to "architect society" end up being the worst type of "rules for thee but not for me" tyrants.

I think the Founding Fathers of the U.S. 'architected society' reasonably well in the 1770-1800 period?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#439

Post by tehwebguy » Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 8:36 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #301

tehwebguy wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What do you mean?

It's a metaphor, I mean that an individual who disagrees with a jury system trying to avoid jury duty does nothing to help dismantle it. In fact, their refusal to participate likely comes with a human cost.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#440

Post by jrochkind1 » Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 1:16 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #66

Alex3917 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason they ask you questions like whether or not you would be able to find someone guilty if you knew they might get sentenced to death isn't because they want to put you in jail overnight. They just don't want you on the jury.

Sure, but that's not the same thing as saying you won't vote to convict under any circumstances.

You can certainly say you won't vote to convinct under any circumstances during voir dire.

It's not illegal in any way. It won't get you thrown in jail for contempt. It is probably protected by the first ammendment to say so. It will get you excluded from the jury.

People do it all the time, in fact.

The exact standard questions asked of jurors in voir dire vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually include some variation of if there any religious, philosophical, or ethical reasons you could not convict (or not acquit) generally.

I mean, imagine if you had philosophical, ethical, or reliigous reasons you couldn't convict under any circumstances and you wound up on the jury anyway! If you didn't tell the court this when asked and wound up on the jury cause you lied about it... you probably still wouldn't actually be considered in contempt, but it'd be bad.