Comment on YSK about Jury Nullification, if you're an American and you don't, look it up.
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Unpopular take but despite it being a popular thing, we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does no apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can. Every study ever has shown that people who know about jury nullification tend to dismiss evidence more often, and are more easily deceived by a sympathetic/ non-sympathetic looking defendant. It’s not even a law, it’s the result of the fact juries can’t be persecuted for their decisions so really they can do whatever they want. This is enough to know that technically you can “nullify the law”.
Saying the law doesn’t actually apply despite the person having done the thing the law says not to do is very different from saying the punishment should be nil. This could also keep you from ever serving on a jury and telling others about this in certain circumstances could be a crime. All the legal minds who looked into this agree it should still remain a thing, but it shouldn’t be told to jurors explicitly. When you serve you swear to uphold the law, so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery except for very very special cases.
This is not a good YSK, you should understand what the law is as a juror.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
There’s a fail safe for this, a judge can override a juries guilty vote but not a ruling of innocence.
Still, not ideal because it comes down to one person not agreeing with the jury, but at least there is some protection
so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery except for very very special cases.
Assuming you meant perjury, it is not tricky in the slightest. You vote your conscience and don’t say something stupid like “I lied during voire dire, nyah ah ahhh!”.
we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can.
There is an ongoing shift towards fascism, and at least for now the courts still have power over whether or not people get to walk free.
So there is more to it than your letting on. We’re gonna see cases of people who have done illegal things because the fascists in power decided to make existence defacto illegal for people.
An example of this is the bans on transgender people from using bathrooms other than their assigned sex. If I’m ever a juror on a case like that, I’m fucking voting not guilty, and everybody else should too.
Or it will be used to let fascists off, because their supporters will vote fucking not guilty and say that everyone else should too.
Yeah, that’s why you don’t share this with fascists.
And for the most part, it’s generally not the case that fascists find themselves in the hot seat, because their buddies are cops, or themselves are cops. The rule of law was never truly applied to them in the first place.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
This doesn’t seem right… My understanding of jury nullification is that it ends with the charges being dismissed.
They’re saying that a defendant can be convicted with minimal or circumstantial evidence. Because, much like they can decide the law shouldn’t apply when they think the defendant did it, they can decide the defendant is guilty even if the evidence doesn’t say that.
Ok… But is that really “jury nullification”? The word “nullify” implies that they are disagreeing with the law, so they choose not to enforce it. That can only go one way in this situation.
Also, the judge would have to agree, as they have the authority to forego the jury verdict from guilty to not guilty (but not vice versa).
It’s by no means a perfect system, but what is?
This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.
IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.
There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.
You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
No, it can often be a good reason. I disagree with laws that would make it illegal for trans people to use their preferred bathroom. They punish women for not being feminine enough, it forcibly outs trans people. It’s dangerous and stupid.
Anybody who votes not guilty in such a case is right to do so.
I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).
This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
And what if the law is “trans people should not exist”?
Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.
And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.
That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get 9 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.
But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.
And it’s not like the charges are dropped if jury nullification takes place.
Both sides can appeal the decision and when it gets to an appeals judge they will likely look at the case and say ‘yea, this should be tried again’
Is an appealing an innocent verdict not double jeopardy?
I don’t know what double jeopardy is.
Dubiousx99@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 4 days ago
This post does not say jury nullification shouldn’t exist/be allowed. It says the opposite.
Dubiousx99@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Let me clarify, I disagree that people should not be informed about jury nullification. Too many people forget that we grant our government power. One way we continue to enforce that power grant is by reserving the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Too many people take that message to heart that they need to rule in accordance with the law.
PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yeah, there’s a reason the juror box has been referred to as the third box of liberty.
The four boxes are the soap box, (making your disagreement publicly known, and trying to gather others who agree), ballot box, (voting out corrupt officials), juror box, (refusing to convict for unjust laws), and lastly the ammo box. Typically used in that order.
Basically, protest starts by voicing your disagreement. That’s your soap box. You make your disagreement publicly heard, and try to gather others who also disagree with the government. When you have enough people gathered together, it becomes a peaceful protest.
But when that doesn’t work, You vote for representatives that will be able to make decisions you agree with. The hope is that they’ll enact change for the better once they’re in office. Basically, get rid of the corrupt officials who are working against the public.
Third, if the government has enacted laws you disagree with (because you’re not being represented, and they have ignored your peaceful protests), then you move on to the jury box. Refuse to convict when you believe the justice system is unjust.
Lastly, if the government still refuses to change and is continuing to prosecute people for unjust laws (for instance, secret police bypassing the jury box by skipping a fair trial) then you move onto the ammo box as a form of protest. Because if the government has refused to allow for peaceful protest via the first three boxes, then that only leaves the fourth box.
As the government becomes more and more tyrannical, you start using more and more of your boxes. Hopefully you never need to reach for the fourth box.