If that is their true conviction (no pun intended), then yes. Being a juror is probably the last, largest opportunity the citizen has to influence justice and even jurisprudence in this country. It's far more impactful than a vote.
If that is their true conviction (no pun intended), then yes. Being a juror is probably the last, largest opportunity the citizen has to influence justice and even jurisprudence in this country. It's far more impactful than a vote.
This is somewhat of a non sequitur example, but anyway...
When Scott Adams defended the medical examiner Kevin Rowland against sexual battery charges, do you believe he was successful in doing so because he convinced the jury the even never occurred? Or did he do so because he convinced them that the whole spectacle of a trial over a "titty twister" as a criminal act was an absurd and abhorrent waste of the justice system's time and marginalization of its deference?
When Scott Adams defended the medical examiner Kevin Rowland against sexual battery charges, do you believe he was successful in doing so because he convinced the jury the even never occurred? Or did he do so because he convinced them that the whole spectacle of a trial over a "titty twister" as a criminal act was an absurd and abhorrent waste of the justice system's time and marginalization of its deference?
I get what you guys are saying, I really do. To be fair, I mostly agree in that I love the idea of citizens having the final say. It still makes me nervous though. I'll never forget the commercial flight I was on from Dallas to Atlanta (back when local broadcast stations were beginning the process of switching over to digital HDTV signals) where I heard another persons exclaim something to the effect of "the government can't expect me to pay for a converter box, it's against the Constitution!! Now I understand that a jury isn't going to change a law, they're only going to refuse to convict someone accused of violating it in a single instance. In essence, the charges are nullified rather than the law itself. That being said, it still gives me pause to picture 12 people who think that watching television is a constitutionally protected right ending up on a jury together.
The larger impact of nullifying a law is that if a single law is nullified repeatedly, then the lawmakers will be forced to correct that law. Either by striking it from the books or changing the law itself to conform the obvious will of the people.
I do not believe that finding someone guilty or not guilty because of your personal feeling towards them was the original intent of jury nullification. It was not intended to influence guilt or innocence at all. Its intent was to rule solely on the law itself.
For instance I might vote a drug dealer guilty on State drug charges. The same person charged in Federal court on identical charges I would vote not guilty in an attempt to nullify the law. The reason being I feel that Federal drug laws are unconstitutional.
Michael
But couldn't 12 people get together and say that they feel a stand your ground law is unconstitutional, as well, and vote on those merits (putting race and other issues aside).
It's like telling soldiers they can choose to disobey orders they feel aren't right. Yes, there is a certain amount of moral good feeling that comes with that idea, but if you offer that option then you don't truly know which orders will be obeyed and which will not be.
John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the United States.
Michael
Can you offer any anecdotal evidence that anyone has ever been convicted due to jury nullification? I ask because in every case I've ever heard or read about, the result was a refusal to convict a defendant because to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.
Also to clarify the original story - the court found that people advocating for, and informing jurors of, jury nullification is not a crime. Previously, this locale was locking people up for simply providing jurors information.
Similar threads
