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....
Jurors need to be willing to pay attention to the evidence and look at it objectively.
A bachelor's degree has nothing to do with that.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Also, if the jury's decision is against the weight of the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict (basically reverse the jury's verdict).
Not really. I think the prosecuting organization can appeal, though.
Jury nullification is a tried and true way of protesting unjust laws. I don't remember a case that saw true jury nullification in the last 20 years, though.
None of the above. A judge can't overturn a not guilty verdict and the prosecution cannot appeal a jury's decision.
Basically, once the jury finds you not guilty, that's it. They can come out of the jury room and say they acquitted you because they didn't like the color of the prosecutor's tie, and there's nothing the government can do about it.
See, I don't get why the jury didn't do exactly that. Granted in the bigger scheme of things it didn't make a difference - the sentence for the defendant's plea is being served concurrently with the sentence he got for a different conviction - but AFAIK the jury wasn't aware of the defendant's priors when they came up with this pseudo-nullification idea.
If the defendant had been some regular guy working in an office 9-5, the conviction based on the plea still goes on the guy's record, probably gets him fired, and pops up on background checks for the rest of his life. Whereas if the jury had allowed themselves to be seated and then acquitted, then the defendant's name is cleared. That would have been true nullification.
Of course, that would have required the jurors to actually serve jury duty. Blech. Hey, if it gets me out of jury duty, I'm morally opposed to any/all laws too.
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'.
Given that more crime is committed by poor people and more education is had by rich people...
Yea, if I was growing up on some city streets I'm sure I'd be thrilled to be judged by people who couldn't be paid enough to come to my neighborhood
Having people vote directly on laws has worked out so well legislatively, I don't see why we shouldn't be doing it judicially, as well.
The difference is that jury nullification only really affects one person. If a jury decides a law isn't fair in a given case, that doesn't change the law for everyone else.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
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.
Japan is a terrible place.
mrt144 on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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're one step away from advocating disenfranchisement of voters. Was this your intent?
Look, I'm smarter than most graduates from WSU, yet didn't even get past 11th grade. I make a nice salary in IT and am well versed on several topics. Are you saying I can't decide the guilt of a Harvard MBA?
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.
Having people vote directly on laws has worked out so well legislatively, I don't see why we shouldn't be doing it judicially, as well.
The difference is that jury nullification only really affects one person. If a jury decides a law isn't fair in a given case, that doesn't change the law for everyone else.
And it only works one way. Juries can nullify when the law was broken, but judged unjust. Juries cannot convict you if no law was broken, even if what you did was totally unjust.
And to emphasize once more, since a shocking amount of posters here think that it is only the juries job to judge whether the law was broken:
If you are on a jury, it is your duty to judge both the facts and the law. This is an intentional check in our justice system. A feature, not a bug.
IMO if you disagree with the law don't sit on the jury.
So you AGREE with what they did in Montana, then?
Yeah, uh, that's what they did. That's what nullification is. They ask "Could you find someone guilty of suchandsuch law, and they all said no.
No, technically that's not what nullification is.
Nullification is when a seated jury renders a verdict that's not based on the evidence but on their personal view of the law, or the accused.
Saying "I will not convict someone for breaking this law" during the jury selection process nullifies nothing since the prosecution could simply move the trial to a different venue.
The only reason it might count as "nullification" is when the prosecution decides, for financial reasons, not to do so.
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.
Japan is a terrible place.
It's better than the previous system with a guilty-until-proven-innocent 99% conviction rate. It's the whole basis of the Phoenix Wright games and the overarching plot in Apollo Justice.
Jury nullification is a power granted to the jury, but jurors who know about it are usually removed during the selection process. The rule is that you cannot intend to use it before the trial.
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.
No, it isn't. It's an existing bug in the system that can't really be fixed without gutting the role of the jury.
Let's be brutally honest here: people like jury nullification because they think it's going to lead to the results they want.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm shocked that some here would abolish such an important legal concept as jury nullification. Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. Yes, it has been abused, but getting rid of it would be like removing freedom of speech because it can allow a neo-nazi demonstration. Frankly, I find the idea that jurors can be dismissed for knowing about their rights disgusting.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
No, I like jury nullification because it's another check to prevent a police state.
Except that it's just as easily a check to allow the violent persecution or murder of unpopular minorities to go legally unpunished.
Yay freedom!
Yeah, I mean, why do we even have juries? Everything should just be decided by a judge.
Trial by jury is a check on governmental power without the concept of jury nullification.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amounted to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
I'm shocked that some here would abolish such an important legal concept as jury nullification. Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. Yes, it has been abused, but getting rid of it would be like removing freedom of speech because it can allow a neo-nazi demonstration. Frankly, I find the idea that jurors can be dismissed for knowing about their rights disgusting.
Or we could have jurors decide guilt based on the law then have other means to determine if a law is legitimate, which we already have in place.
And your analogy is silly. Very silly.
I realize certain nuances of communication are lost in our forum discussions, but in this instance I thought I was being pretty obviously facetious.
Trial by jury is a check on governmental power without the concept of jury nullification.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amount to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
I'm not denying it happened and that it's a cost of that check. I'm saying "it's worth it."
I'm shocked that some here would abolish such an important legal concept as jury nullification. Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. Yes, it has been abused, but getting rid of it would be like removing freedom of speech because it can allow a neo-nazi demonstration. Frankly, I find the idea that jurors can be dismissed for knowing about their rights disgusting.
I'm sorry, I thought that's what appeals courts are for. Really, the idea of jury nullification is the idea that a couple random retards should be able to supersede the entire government.
No, I like jury nullification because it's another check to prevent a police state.
Except that it's just as easily a check to allow the violent persecution or murder of unpopular minorities to go legally unpunished.
Yay freedom!
Yeah, I mean, why do we even have juries? Everything should just be decided by a judge.
Trial by jury is a check on governmental power without the concept of jury nullification.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amount to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
You really can't get rid of jury nullification without completely doing away with juries.
Sure you could ask juries specific questions of fact and then find a verdict based on the answers to those questions, but the jury could just refuse to line the answers to those questions up with the facts.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amounted to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
As if there aren't historical examples of jury nullification amounting to the only thing standing in the way of imprisonment for those who disagreed with government-sanctioned slavery of black folks. (Fugitive Slave Act)
No, I like jury nullification because it's another check to prevent a police state.
Except that it's just as easily a check to allow the violent persecution or murder of unpopular minorities to go legally unpunished.
Yay freedom!
Yeah, I mean, why do we even have juries? Everything should just be decided by a judge.
Trial by jury is a check on governmental power without the concept of jury nullification.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amount to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
You really can't get rid of jury nullification without completely doing away with juries.
Sure you could ask juries specific questions of fact and then find a verdict based on the answers to those questions, but the jury could just refuse to line the answers to those questions up with the facts.
Or you could just have automatic mistrial if there were indications that they were making decisions other than guilt versus innocence.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amounted to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
As if there aren't historical examples of jury nullification amounting to the only thing standing in the way of imprisonment for those who disagreed with government-sanctioned slavery of black folks. (Fugitive Slave Act)
Get back to me when modern juries have to rule on the Fugitive Slave Act, okay?
You really can't get rid of jury nullification without completely doing away with juries.
Not sure how this follows. You can determine guilt under the law without getting to decide whether you even like the law.
Read the rest of it. Jury nullification is essentially the jury returning a "not-guilty" verdict even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the defendant broke the law.
Sure, you can tell the jury "ok, you really have to return a guilty verdict even if you disagree with the law," but if they really disagreed with the law there's nothing stopping them from still returning a not-guilty verdict.
You really can't get rid of jury nullification without completely doing away with juries.
Not sure how this follows. You can determine guilt under the law without getting to decide whether you even like the law.
Read the rest of it. Jury nullification is essentially the jury returning a "not-guilty" verdict even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the defendant broke the law.
Sure, you can tell the jury "ok, you really have to return a guilty verdict even if you disagree with the law," but if they really disagreed with the law there's nothing stopping them from still returning a not-guilty verdict.
Thats what jury selection is for, to weed out the ideologues.
I'm shocked that some here would abolish such an important legal concept as jury nullification. Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. Yes, it has been abused, but getting rid of it would be like removing freedom of speech because it can allow a neo-nazi demonstration. Frankly, I find the idea that jurors can be dismissed for knowing about their rights disgusting.
I'm sorry, I thought that's what appeals courts are for. Really, the idea of jury nullification is the idea that a couple random retards should be able to supersede the entire government.
The only grounds to appeal against the law itself is on a constitutionality claim. A bad law can be perfectly constitutional.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I'm shocked that some here would abolish such an important legal concept as jury nullification. Juries are the last line of defense against bad laws. Yes, it has been abused, but getting rid of it would be like removing freedom of speech because it can allow a neo-nazi demonstration. Frankly, I find the idea that jurors can be dismissed for knowing about their rights disgusting.
I'm sorry, I thought that's what appeals courts are for. Really, the idea of jury nullification is the idea that a couple random retards should be able to supersede the entire government.
The only grounds to appeal against the law itself is on a constitutionality claim. A bad law can be perfectly constitutional.
In which case it isn't the role of the jury to rule against it.
The problem being they can come back with a verdict of not guilty due to not liking the law, and you would never know.
That's part of the beauty. Plausible deniability.
Unless of course, they discuss it, in which case it'd be on the record. Now, is the entire jury going to agree that they're suddenly the appeals court individually or through psychic powers?
Posts
A bachelor's degree has nothing to do with that.
Rigorous Scholarship
See, I don't get why the jury didn't do exactly that. Granted in the bigger scheme of things it didn't make a difference - the sentence for the defendant's plea is being served concurrently with the sentence he got for a different conviction - but AFAIK the jury wasn't aware of the defendant's priors when they came up with this pseudo-nullification idea.
If the defendant had been some regular guy working in an office 9-5, the conviction based on the plea still goes on the guy's record, probably gets him fired, and pops up on background checks for the rest of his life. Whereas if the jury had allowed themselves to be seated and then acquitted, then the defendant's name is cleared. That would have been true nullification.
Of course, that would have required the jurors to actually serve jury duty. Blech. Hey, if it gets me out of jury duty, I'm morally opposed to any/all laws too.
So you AGREE with what they did in Montana, then?
Why don't you enlighten me if its relevant to the thread oh great one.
:^:
Given that more crime is committed by poor people and more education is had by rich people...
Yea, if I was growing up on some city streets I'm sure I'd be thrilled to be judged by people who couldn't be paid enough to come to my neighborhood
Rigorous Scholarship
Japan is a terrible place.
Yeah, uh, that's what they did. That's what nullification is. They ask "Could you find someone guilty of suchandsuch law, and they all said no.
You're one step away from advocating disenfranchisement of voters. Was this your intent?
Look, I'm smarter than most graduates from WSU, yet didn't even get past 11th grade. I make a nice salary in IT and am well versed on several topics. Are you saying I can't decide the guilt of a Harvard MBA?
:rotate:
AH MAN YOU GOT ME
And it only works one way. Juries can nullify when the law was broken, but judged unjust. Juries cannot convict you if no law was broken, even if what you did was totally unjust.
And to emphasize once more, since a shocking amount of posters here think that it is only the juries job to judge whether the law was broken:
If you are on a jury, it is your duty to judge both the facts and the law. This is an intentional check in our justice system. A feature, not a bug.
No, technically that's not what nullification is.
Nullification is when a seated jury renders a verdict that's not based on the evidence but on their personal view of the law, or the accused.
Saying "I will not convict someone for breaking this law" during the jury selection process nullifies nothing since the prosecution could simply move the trial to a different venue.
The only reason it might count as "nullification" is when the prosecution decides, for financial reasons, not to do so.
Jury nullification is a power granted to the jury, but jurors who know about it are usually removed during the selection process. The rule is that you cannot intend to use it before the trial.
No, it isn't. It's an existing bug in the system that can't really be fixed without gutting the role of the jury.
Let's be brutally honest here: people like jury nullification because they think it's going to lead to the results they want.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Except that it's just as easily a check to allow the violent persecution or murder of unpopular minorities to go legally unpunished.
Yay freedom!
Yeah, I mean, why do we even have juries? Everything should just be decided by a judge.
o_O
....joke?
Trial by jury is a check on governmental power without the concept of jury nullification.
Sorry to point out the actual historical examples of how jury nullification has amounted to the government-sanctioned murder and oppression of black folks, I guess.
Or we could have jurors decide guilt based on the law then have other means to determine if a law is legitimate, which we already have in place.
And your analogy is silly. Very silly.
One can never know.
I'm not denying it happened and that it's a cost of that check. I'm saying "it's worth it."
I'm sorry, I thought that's what appeals courts are for. Really, the idea of jury nullification is the idea that a couple random retards should be able to supersede the entire government.
You really can't get rid of jury nullification without completely doing away with juries.
Sure you could ask juries specific questions of fact and then find a verdict based on the answers to those questions, but the jury could just refuse to line the answers to those questions up with the facts.
Not sure how this follows. You can determine guilt under the law without getting to decide whether you even like the law.
As if there aren't historical examples of jury nullification amounting to the only thing standing in the way of imprisonment for those who disagreed with government-sanctioned slavery of black folks. (Fugitive Slave Act)
Or you could just have automatic mistrial if there were indications that they were making decisions other than guilt versus innocence.
Get back to me when modern juries have to rule on the Fugitive Slave Act, okay?
That's part of the beauty. Plausible deniability.
Read the rest of it. Jury nullification is essentially the jury returning a "not-guilty" verdict even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the defendant broke the law.
Sure, you can tell the jury "ok, you really have to return a guilty verdict even if you disagree with the law," but if they really disagreed with the law there's nothing stopping them from still returning a not-guilty verdict.
Thats what jury selection is for, to weed out the ideologues.
The only grounds to appeal against the law itself is on a constitutionality claim. A bad law can be perfectly constitutional.
In which case it isn't the role of the jury to rule against it.
Unless of course, they discuss it, in which case it'd be on the record. Now, is the entire jury going to agree that they're suddenly the appeals court individually or through psychic powers?