Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
I'd try to have myself released from selection. Any competent prosecuter would have me gone anyway.
lets assume you somehow made it to the jury
I'd rather not chase down infinite what if rabbit holes.
You're trying to get me to say my morality and feelings don't line up with my logic and I'm aware of that. That's the case in many instances. I oppose revenge but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to beat the ever loving shit out of someone who hurt my little sister.
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
Just speak your mind during the jury selection process and they'll dismiss you.
I don't understand why you're making the example something harmless and that most all people would find not a problem, like sodomy.
Why don't we use the actual example I've already described. The KKK kills black men. The police have a mountain of evidence. The southern jury finds them not guilty because they considered that the morally correct choice.
So no, if I were somehow forced to be on this jury I would find the man guilty or not guilty based on the evidence rather than completely fucking ignoring the law. The protest should be refusing to sit on the jury.
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
I'd try to have myself released from selection. Any competent prosecuter would have me gone anyway.
lets assume you somehow made it to the jury
I'd rather not chase down infinite what if rabbit holes.
You're trying to get me to say my morality and feelings don't line up with my logic and I'm aware of that. That's the case in many instances. I oppose revenge but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to beat the ever loving shit out of someone who hurt my little sister.
Dude what? Its not an infinite rabbit hole, I am not trying to show if your logic matches up or whatever, I am just trying to see if you have are a man of conviction or not and if so where do your convictions lay, with morality or the law.
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
Just speak your mind during the jury selection process and they'll dismiss you.
I don't understand why you're making the example something harmless and that most all people would find not a problem, like sodomy.
Why don't we use the actual example I've already described. The KKK kills black men. The police have a mountain of evidence. The southern jury finds them not guilty because they considered that the morally correct choice.
So no, if I were somehow forced to be on this jury I would find the man guilty or not guilty based on the evidence rather than completely fucking ignoring the law. The protest should be refusing to sit on the jury.
so if you have the power to keep a good person out of jail, you will willingly give up that power? and let that persons life be ruined?
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
I'd try to have myself released from selection. Any competent prosecuter would have me gone anyway.
lets assume you somehow made it to the jury
I'd rather not chase down infinite what if rabbit holes.
You're trying to get me to say my morality and feelings don't line up with my logic and I'm aware of that. That's the case in many instances. I oppose revenge but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to beat the ever loving shit out of someone who hurt my little sister.
Dude what? Its not an infinite rabbit hole, I am not trying to show if your logic matches up or whatever, I am just trying to see if you have are a man of conviction or not and if so where do your convictions lay, with morality or the law.
If I say I oppose sodomy laws no court is going to keep me on the jury for a sodomy case. What ifs that aren't going to happen add nothing.
If I was somehow forced to be on a jury I would of course not convict the man, those laws are monstrous. Thats why we have a system that keeps me off the jury. But it goes both ways as was shown above. What if what the jury finds something you think bad morally acceptable even if not legally?
The point is we need a jury that determines guilt under the law, not guilt under their own personal morality. There are channels and means for striking down unjust laws.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Refusing to convict under an unjust law is an essential purpose of trial by jury. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
That said, jury nullification isn't all justice and roses. It has a bad history of protecting white people who murdered black people.
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
Just speak your mind during the jury selection process and they'll dismiss you.
I don't understand why you're making the example something harmless and that most all people would find not a problem, like sodomy.
Why don't we use the actual example I've already described. The KKK kills black men. The police have a mountain of evidence. The southern jury finds them not guilty because they considered that the morally correct choice.
So no, if I were somehow forced to be on this jury I would find the man guilty or not guilty based on the evidence rather than completely fucking ignoring the law. The protest should be refusing to sit on the jury.
so if you have the power to keep a good person out of jail, you will willingly give up that power? and let that persons life be ruined?
The law is the only practical way to decide who is a "good person". Like the very real cases of Klansmen thinking murderes were "good people" and thus prevented their life from being ruined that you kepe ignoring, you cannot just impose your morality on society.
Because apparently, if there's a law against it, society doesn't fucking agree with you.
If after speaking your mind, you're still chosen to be on the jury, it's your job to determine if the defendant broke the law in question. That's the role of a juror. Not to deliver your verdict based on whether or not you think John Doe is a "good person."
That sucks, but it's kind of the way our legal system works. Sometimes there are exceptions, but they seem few and far between.
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
Just speak your mind during the jury selection process and they'll dismiss you.
I don't understand why you're making the example something harmless and that most all people would find not a problem, like sodomy.
Why don't we use the actual example I've already described. The KKK kills black men. The police have a mountain of evidence. The southern jury finds them not guilty because they considered that the morally correct choice.
So no, if I were somehow forced to be on this jury I would find the man guilty or not guilty based on the evidence rather than completely fucking ignoring the law. The protest should be refusing to sit on the jury.
so if you have the power to keep a good person out of jail, you will willingly give up that power? and let that persons life be ruined?
The law is the only practical way to decide who is a "good person". Like the very real cases of Klansmen thinking murderes were "good people" and thus prevented their life from being ruined that you kepe ignoring, you cannot just impose your morality on society.
Because apparently, if there's a law against it, society doesn't fucking agree with you.
Question for all you people who are saying jurors shouldnt have any say in law etc,
If you were on a jury that was prosecuting a man for something you found to be harmless, lets say sodomy or something along those lines, would you convict them if they clearly broke the law? or would you not convict them because that is the morally correct choice?
Just speak your mind during the jury selection process and they'll dismiss you.
I don't understand why you're making the example something harmless and that most all people would find not a problem, like sodomy.
Why don't we use the actual example I've already described. The KKK kills black men. The police have a mountain of evidence. The southern jury finds them not guilty because they considered that the morally correct choice.
So no, if I were somehow forced to be on this jury I would find the man guilty or not guilty based on the evidence rather than completely fucking ignoring the law. The protest should be refusing to sit on the jury.
so if you have the power to keep a good person out of jail, you will willingly give up that power? and let that persons life be ruined?
I wouldn't think the KKK are good people, or anyone that commits murder even if the roles were reversed. However nonsense laws should most certainly be dealt with in this matter. Like... a teenage boy going to jail for getting a blowjob because sodomy is illegal.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Its not a jury's job to decide whether or not they agree with the law or not. Their function is solely to be an independent party to determine whether or not the law was broken, regardless of what the law actually is.
While courts, and especially prosecutors, will try to make juries believe this I do not believe this is in fact the case.
Of course it's better to let your opinions into the open during the selection process, if you deliberately hide your beliefs so you can fuck up the trial later, then yes, you're probably a dick.
this is kind of a side question but, does a jury need a simple majority to convict ( 7 of 12)?
As far as the US goes it has to be 12.
Watch "12 Angry Men", it's a classic
Unanimous in criminal trials. But you don't need a jury of 12 in state criminal trials. SCOTUS has approved juries as small as 6. Federal criminal trials require a jury of 12, IIRC.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Actually, not all states require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Oregon, for example, requires 10 to 2. (ORS 136.450).
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Actually, not all states require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Oregon, for example, requires 10 to 2. (ORS 136.450).
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Yea, I'm ok with letting the occasional guilty person go free if it helps overrule unjust laws, it's really just the other way around that bothers me - when a jury might convict an innocent person because, goddammit, they really fucking hate his face.
Actually, not all states require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Oregon, for example, requires 10 to 2. (ORS 136.450).
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Yea, I'm ok with letting the occasional guilty person go free if it helps overrule unjust laws, it's really just the other way around that bothers me - when a jury might convict an innocent person because, goddammit, they really fucking hate his face.
The guy in that scenario can appeal the verdict. If the verdict isn't based on sufficient evidence, or there's evidence of discrimination by jury members, he has a good case.
I mean, if I was on a jury and some of the jury members were like "let's fry this darkie," I'd tell the judge about it (even if I thought the defendant was guilty).
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
If you get past voir dire but refuse to take the juror's oath, can you be held in contempt of court? Because I can see some cases where you might truthfully get to that point, but would also be perjuring yourself to take the oath.
Actually, not all states require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Oregon, for example, requires 10 to 2. (ORS 136.450).
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Yea, I'm ok with letting the occasional guilty person go free if it helps overrule unjust laws, it's really just the other way around that bothers me - when a jury might convict an innocent person because, goddammit, they really fucking hate his face.
The guy in that scenario can appeal the verdict. If the verdict isn't based on sufficient evidence, or there's evidence of discrimination by jury members, he has a good case.
I mean, if I was on a jury and some of the jury members were like "let's fry this darkie," I'd tell the judge about it (even if I thought the defendant was guilty).
Appellate courts often view juries as 'a black box'. They don't examine what goes on inside the jury room, they merely examine the evidence and arguments presented to the jury. In egregious cases, they might overturn a jury verdict because of something a juror said in deliberations, but it would be extremely difficult.
Actually, not all states require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Oregon, for example, requires 10 to 2. (ORS 136.450).
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Yea, I'm ok with letting the occasional guilty person go free if it helps overrule unjust laws, it's really just the other way around that bothers me - when a jury might convict an innocent person because, goddammit, they really fucking hate his face.
The guy in that scenario can appeal the verdict. If the verdict isn't based on sufficient evidence, or there's evidence of discrimination by jury members, he has a good case.
I mean, if I was on a jury and some of the jury members were like "let's fry this darkie," I'd tell the judge about it (even if I thought the defendant was guilty).
Appellate courts often view juries as 'a black box'. They don't examine what goes on inside the jury room, they merely examine the evidence and arguments presented to the jury. In egregious cases, they might overturn a jury verdict because of something a juror said in deliberations, but it would be extremely difficult.
I've read about cases where inappropriate juror statements or behavior were taken into account by the appellate court. I remember a case where some jurors brought in a Bible to look at its provisions on the death penalty. If a juror made bigoted comments in the jury room, that's evidence that the defendant did not get a fair trial.
Of course, if a juror just keeps his mouth shut about his bigotry, there's no way to know that he convicted someone based on his race.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Actually, not all states require a unanimous verdict in criminal cases. Oregon, for example, requires 10 to 2. (ORS 136.450).
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Not to mention the fact that pretty much every jury you'll ever get contains no constitutional scholors or even people who know shit about the constitution.
You know in Japan they don't really do juries as much. But they're coming around to it and in their system there are minimum education requirements among other things to be a juror. A lot of this is because it would be shameful for someone of standing to be judged by someone of low standing in Japanese society.
You know in Japan they don't really do juries as much. But they're coming around to it and in their system there are minimum education requirements among other things to be a juror. A lot of this is because it would be shameful for someone of standing to be judged by someone of low standing in Japanese society.
Always thought there might be something to it.
That system sounds terrible, frankly.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You know in Japan they don't really do juries as much. But they're coming around to it and in their system there are minimum education requirements among other things to be a juror. A lot of this is because it would be shameful for someone of standing to be judged by someone of low standing in Japanese society.
Always thought there might be something to it.
That system sounds terrible, frankly.
Yeah its not ideal, just a nice pipe dream. To have juries full of people who know what they're doing....
You know in Japan they don't really do juries as much. But they're coming around to it and in their system there are minimum education requirements among other things to be a juror. A lot of this is because it would be shameful for someone of standing to be judged by someone of low standing in Japanese society.
Always thought there might be something to it.
That system sounds terrible, frankly.
Yeah its not ideal, just a nice pipe dream. To have juries full of people who know what they're doing....
education requirement =/= know what you're doing. Unless the education requirement is taking a class on 'criminal law and procedure for jurymen'.
At the very least the laws that a dictator imposed on the people should be considered differently than those voted in by the people. If the King declared whatever and a jury said "fuck that" I'm far more sympathetic. Politicians are elected, if you don't like the laws they're creating then elect the guy saying he'll vote against it/repeal it.
In this country unjust laws simply don't get passed by decree or by accident, by definition most people need to think it's a good idea.
To use your own horrible comparisons, slavery was legal by the will of the majority for many years of this nation's history.
The common law system has allowed jury nullification for centuries. It rarely happens, but it is a legitimate and established principle of common law justice systems.
Just like how it is still unnecessary for the Crown or the State to conduct prosecutions - private individuals can conduct prosecutions just as well.
Posts
I'd rather not chase down infinite what if rabbit holes.
You're trying to get me to say my morality and feelings don't line up with my logic and I'm aware of that. That's the case in many instances. I oppose revenge but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to beat the ever loving shit out of someone who hurt my little sister.
Just speak your mind during the jury selection process and they'll dismiss you.
I don't understand why you're making the example something harmless and that most all people would find not a problem, like sodomy.
Why don't we use the actual example I've already described. The KKK kills black men. The police have a mountain of evidence. The southern jury finds them not guilty because they considered that the morally correct choice.
So no, if I were somehow forced to be on this jury I would find the man guilty or not guilty based on the evidence rather than completely fucking ignoring the law. The protest should be refusing to sit on the jury.
Dude what? Its not an infinite rabbit hole, I am not trying to show if your logic matches up or whatever, I am just trying to see if you have are a man of conviction or not and if so where do your convictions lay, with morality or the law.
so if you have the power to keep a good person out of jail, you will willingly give up that power? and let that persons life be ruined?
If I say I oppose sodomy laws no court is going to keep me on the jury for a sodomy case. What ifs that aren't going to happen add nothing.
If I was somehow forced to be on a jury I would of course not convict the man, those laws are monstrous. Thats why we have a system that keeps me off the jury. But it goes both ways as was shown above. What if what the jury finds something you think bad morally acceptable even if not legally?
The point is we need a jury that determines guilt under the law, not guilt under their own personal morality. There are channels and means for striking down unjust laws.
That said, jury nullification isn't all justice and roses. It has a bad history of protecting white people who murdered black people.
The law is the only practical way to decide who is a "good person". Like the very real cases of Klansmen thinking murderes were "good people" and thus prevented their life from being ruined that you kepe ignoring, you cannot just impose your morality on society.
Because apparently, if there's a law against it, society doesn't fucking agree with you.
That sucks, but it's kind of the way our legal system works. Sometimes there are exceptions, but they seem few and far between.
did you really just say that?
I wouldn't think the KKK are good people, or anyone that commits murder even if the roles were reversed. However nonsense laws should most certainly be dealt with in this matter. Like... a teenage boy going to jail for getting a blowjob because sodomy is illegal.
While courts, and especially prosecutors, will try to make juries believe this I do not believe this is in fact the case.
Of course it's better to let your opinions into the open during the selection process, if you deliberately hide your beliefs so you can fuck up the trial later, then yes, you're probably a dick.
Unanimous generally as I recall.
As far as the US goes it has to be 12.
Watch "12 Angry Men", it's a classic
No I genuinely did not know the answer, and holy shit it has to be unanimous? What happens if 11 people say guilty and 1 person says not guilty?
Called a "hung jury".
Criminal cases require unanimity.
Civil cases require a simple majority.
If they can't convince a guy you're not a murderer you probably shouldn't go to jail as a murderer.
Rigorous Scholarship
But that's besides the point; as far as jury nullification goes, it is disfavored by the courts because it is such a double-edged sword. For all the cited cases of juries nullifying unpopular laws, there are plenty of cases of juries letting off defendants because of racism or other motives, and plenty of cases of juries convicting innocent people based on race or unpopularity. Which is why we try to have a system that removes biased jurors from the jury so that they can make their decisions based on the facts of the case, rather than pre-existing motives.
Yea, I'm ok with letting the occasional guilty person go free if it helps overrule unjust laws, it's really just the other way around that bothers me - when a jury might convict an innocent person because, goddammit, they really fucking hate his face.
I mean, if I was on a jury and some of the jury members were like "let's fry this darkie," I'd tell the judge about it (even if I thought the defendant was guilty).
Rigorous Scholarship
Rigorous Scholarship
Appellate courts often view juries as 'a black box'. They don't examine what goes on inside the jury room, they merely examine the evidence and arguments presented to the jury. In egregious cases, they might overturn a jury verdict because of something a juror said in deliberations, but it would be extremely difficult.
Of course, if a juror just keeps his mouth shut about his bigotry, there's no way to know that he convicted someone based on his race.
Rigorous Scholarship
Not to mention the fact that pretty much every jury you'll ever get contains no constitutional scholors or even people who know shit about the constitution.
Always thought there might be something to it.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah its not ideal, just a nice pipe dream. To have juries full of people who know what they're doing....
education requirement =/= know what you're doing. Unless the education requirement is taking a class on 'criminal law and procedure for jurymen'.
To use your own horrible comparisons, slavery was legal by the will of the majority for many years of this nation's history.
edit: also, segregation
Just like how it is still unnecessary for the Crown or the State to conduct prosecutions - private individuals can conduct prosecutions just as well.
I don't think you quite understand how the Common Law system works...