Jury Nullification

[sir_scutter]

http://www.fija.org/

The Fully Informed Jury Association has been working for a while now to get the word out about jury nullification. Basically, (from what I understand) a jury's decision can override any law. Judge doesn't want you to know this, because he likes being powerful and likes the obedience displayed, but it's true. In their own rules, if the jury decides the man with the drugs didn't harm anybody (and he didn't) and they say he's not guilty.. then there will be no charges. FIJA works to get that word out.

Just thought I'd spread some of that neat information.

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

[bigshotprof]

Oh God! This means that Steven Bochco will be coming out with a new series: The Nullifiers. "It's only reasonable . . to doubt!"

[diane]

Okay, but could this work in reverse? Can a jury then use this to rationalize saying someone is guilty when the evidence isn't beyond a reasonable doubt?

I am intrigued.

[sir_scutter]

Okay, but could this work in reverse? Can a jury then use this to rationalize saying someone is guilty when the evidence isn't beyond a reasonable doubt?

I am intrigued.

I suppose, but I haven't really thought that part through. I'm not sure a real example exists where you would have a group of arbitrators who would unfairly punish a person even worse than the law would. Maybe in the "bible belt"? I'm staying out of those states

[diane]

I suppose, but I haven't really thought that part through. I'm not sure a real example exists where you would have a group of arbitrators who would unfairly punish a person even worse than the law would. Maybe in the "bible belt"? I'm staying out of those states

Actually I can see that happening a lot. Granted I do live in Ohio and have lived in Indiana. And thanks to DNA testing convictions here are being overturned left and right here in the Mid West.

[tokenuser]

http://www.fija.org/

The Fully Informed Jury Association has been working for a while now to get the word out about jury nullification. Basically, (from what I understand) a jury's decision can override any law.Almost. A jury cannot override the law. A judge cannot override the law. The law is the law.

What a jury is there to do is determine if the evidence as presented by the prosecutor is sufficient to demonstrate that a law was broken.

A jury cannont override the law, but they can deterine that insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that a law was broken.

I said that twice. But it means the same thing. Thats what a prosecutor will do in a trial. It strengthens their argument.

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.A juror never dispenses punishment. That is the job of the judge. A jury is convened to determine guilt or innocence. The punishment is a seperate proceeding.

There is nothing about a "tyrannical abuse of power" involved at all.

Are you sure you don't listen to Alex Jones?

[diane]

tokenuser you are hysterical!

[sir_scutter]

I admit, that was a funny post.

But I think what we said was the same thing? I mean unless you agree that breaking the law is guilty and following laws is innocence. Then I disagree, because there are absolutely bad laws.

What I see jurry nullification providing is a way of the arbitrators to decide that a man is right or wrong in his doings, without necessarily looking at the law.

For instance: a man smoking cannabis. Clearly didn't harm anyone. Clearly broke the law. But since he didn't hurt anyone, he is innocent by most people's standards. You would want that man sent to jail?

[diane]

I admit, that was a funny post.

But I think what we said was the same thing? I mean unless you agree that breaking the law is guilty and following laws is innocence. Then I disagree, because there are absolutely bad laws.

What I see jurry nullification providing is a way of the arbitrators to decide that a man is right or wrong in his doings, without necessarily looking at the law.

For instance: a man smoking cannabis. Clearly didn't harm anyone. Clearly broke the law. But since he didn't hurt anyone, he is innocent by most people's standards. You would want that man sent to jail?

Though I understand your rationale, there are definitely bad laws, not all laws are bad. I personally find the one that says you are not allowed kidnap a child, rape some one, murder some, etc. to be bad. My issue is that if you think a law is bad, work on getting of the bad law or change it. Usurping one law can run the risk of someone else usurping a law you believe to be a good law.

Though I agree with you that weed isn't dangerous, a lot of people shoplift and don't have a problem with it. What if it happens to be your store? Would you be okay with a jury usurping that law because "it isn't that big of a deal?" I am not saying that every law at that point becomes up for debate, but there quite a few laws people disagree on being just or not. What about prayer in school? If the teacher is a fundamentalist Christian and makes the students pray every morning including your child, would that be okay with you, or would you want the school board to intervene?

You are talking about moving to NH and there are plenty of places out there that is rural and they don't really have a choice when it comes to school so that might be the only elementary school in the area. Would quit your job to teach your child or would you expect that your choices for your child when it comes to something so personal as religion at least be respected?

The ultimate issue is that there will never be true consensus on anything because everyone brings their own values, beliefs and ideals to the situation. Honestly, reading most of your posts, I don't consider you libertarian by that standard, you are actually talking almost an anarchist theory (anarchy as a political theory gets such a bad wrap when really it is ideal if everyone acts like adults-which they don't). Try and change the law. Referendums do work. And if not enough people vote to push it through (has it happened in my state), then do you still argue it is an unjust law just because you believe it be unjust? That is very dangerous water to tread because there are plenty of people who think having sex with little kids is perfectly fine and they find that law to be unjust.

I understand your concern, my issue with the execution. And please don't talk about the corrupt system not letting the law be overturned. All I have to say is women changed the law to allow them to vote when they never even had the ability to vote for it. Look at civil rights, it can be done, peacefully too. If you think the government is corrupt now, go look at the papers of our past presidents. Damn (Harding is my favorite).

[tokenuser]

I admit, that was a funny post.

But I think what we said was the same thing? I mean unless you agree that breaking the law is guilty and following laws is innocence. Then I disagree, because there are absolutely bad laws.It doesn't matter if a law is bad or good, a jury has NO ability to change it. They can only work within the letter of the law (US criminal system), or at best the spirit of the law (Commonwealth - UK, Canada, Australia, etc., legal system).

A jury cannot set precedence.

A judge can. And it has to be a bold judge that does it, then it is referred to as "case law" in which a verdict was passed that was not strictly within the law. But, that is for a judge to decide. If case law gets cited enough, it can be proposed to the state or federal courts that it be passed into statute, atwhich point it is a law law.

What I see jurry nullification providing is a way of the arbitrators to decide that a man is right or wrong in his doings, without necessarily looking at the law.Nice theory. The law is there for a reason. Should we just round up everyone we don't like for any particular reason and stone them? What you are referring to is vigilante justice - and theis is not Gotham.

For instance: a man smoking cannabis. Clearly didn't harm anyone. Clearly broke the law. But since he didn't hurt anyone, he is innocent by most people's standards. You would want that man sent to jail?No. And in many states/counties, it is a misdemeanor resulting in a fine and/or a suspended sentence unless they were carrying enough to go beyond personal use.

FACT is that the guy broke the law. Innocent or guilty. HE IS GUILTY. What does the law say? HE IS GUILTY ... but at this point the judge can determine the punishment. Nothing to do with a jury at all.

[sir_scutter]

This is why government doesn't work, diane! C'mon. You knew I was going to argue back this way. There's no possible way to have a representative government, therefore the government should be consensual of the people it governs. And it's not consensual because I have to pay for things I don't like or I'll be thrown in jail.

Murder and rape and theft and property destruction are BAD THINGS. I'm not advocating total freedom here, I'm advocating liberty. That's where you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. The idea that it's easy to change government to my ways is futile. Even if I could, I would NEVER force my beliefs on others because I know they feel differently.

[sir_scutter]

It doesn't matter if a law is bad or good, a jury has NO ability to change it. They ...ILTY ... but at this point the judge can determine the punishment. Nothing to do with a jury at all.

Well I am sorry you worship the government so much and I hope you'll realize that there is room for change and you aren't stuck with the system you are in.

I have this article to show you about juror nullification:
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/125724.html

And one other person in history to hear your thoughts about:
Rosa Parks

As for me, I'm out for the night. I'll argue some more later.

[sir_scutter]

oh, one more things

Would quit your job to teach your child[?]

In a heartbeat.

[diane]

oh, one more things



In a heartbeat.

I would but I think my child would prefer I work and keep a roof over his head and food in his belly. Plus the video games, that kid loves video games.

[diane]

This is why government doesn't work, diane! C'mon. You knew I was going to argue back this way. There's no possible way to have a representative government, therefore the government should be consensual of the people it governs. And it's not consensual because I have to pay for things I don't like or I'll be thrown in jail.

Murder and rape and theft and property destruction are BAD THINGS. I'm not advocating total freedom here, I'm advocating liberty. That's where you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. The idea that it's easy to change government to my ways is futile. Even if I could, I would NEVER force my beliefs on others because I know they feel differently.

Wait, you claim that you don't want to force your beliefs on anyone else but yet use smoking weed as the example. What about the people who believe that inhaling smoke is bad for them? Or are you stating that people should be allowed to smoke in their homes and in designated areas.

As for representative government that you for proving my belief that you are not talking about democracy (idea with the biggest vote count is the winner) and what you are really talking about is anarchy. HUGE HUGE HUGE DIFFERENCE.

I would recommend buying an island and starting with a clean state because I don't think you can get people to move from a capitalist demo-republic to a bartering anarchy. Sorry, don't think it can be done here.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

The judge can still overrule you. It does NOT happen often, but he/she has the power to do that. If the judge thinks you absolutely made the wrong decision, they can overturn your ruling.

I will say this, I have been excused from a jury pool once for asking if the judge wouldn't mind explaining to the fellow jurors how it worked.

[tokenuser]

Well I am sorry you worship the government so much and I hope you'll realize that there is room for change and you aren't stuck with the system you are in.Worship the government? I did not say that. The arguement here is JURY NULLIFICATION. Its the subject you chose to name the thread. It is not about partisan politics, it is about a jurys ability to change (and change dies not equate to nullify) the law.

I have this article to show you about juror nullification:
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/125724.htmlInteresting article, but I suspect that you don't understand how the justice system works. The defense proved their case. The jury said not guilty. No laws were changed. Where is YOUR supporting argument??

And one other person in history to hear your thoughts about:
Rosa Parks

As for me, I'm out for the night. I'll argue some more later.The civil rights movement had nothing to do with jury nullification, so stop setting up the strawman arguments.

[masherscf]

The jury can't change the law. But, they can ignore the law. They can agree that a person broke a law, but not enter a guilty finding. I think the Judge would need significant grounds to declare a miss trial.

[sir_scutter]

What about the people who believe that inhaling smoke is bad for them?

It's all about the property rights. If you don't like smoke: don't allow it on your property; if you aren't on your property, leave the property. Property rights are very important in a free market society, as there would be no "public" property.

A...ering anarchy. Sorry, don't think it can be done here.

I can do the best I can with my friends (http://www.freestateproject.org). Turns out a lot of people are getting together in a small spot to live free and see how far multiple types of activism will take us. Maybe voting the power-hungry tyrants will do it (locally, of course) or maybe ignoring the gov't will make it so. All I know, is I can't wait to join them (http://forum.freekeene.com).

[sir_scutter]

The judge can still overrule you. It does NOT happen often, but he/she has the power to do that. If the judge thinks you absolutely made the wrong decision, they can overturn your ruling.

I will say this, I have been excused from a jury pool once for asking if the judge wouldn't mind explaining to the fellow jurors how it worked.

That's why it's neat to hand the flyers out to everyone. If anything, it'll slow the process down.

W...about a jurys ability to change (and change dies not equate to nullify) the law...

Well, what I meant was that the law doesn't actually change, but it would be nullified in that instance.