Don't know if this is an overdone topic since I don't normally go on this board but what does Veeky Forums think about...

Don't know if this is an overdone topic since I don't normally go on this board but what does Veeky Forums think about Jury Nullification?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

In my opinion it's a good thing. If an entire jury, rigorously selected, agrees that a "crime" isn't worth being punished for, then it shouldn't be.

Leaving the task of making a balanced and well thought out legal decision up to a bunch of random assholes is usually not ideal in the first place. Add a dash of having lawyers who actually research how best to manipulate juries and you've got a jolly old time.

There's a place for juries, but you can't assume they'll be rational.

It will get you rejected from jury duty quicker than a rock in compton

It's a great thing. Sure, jurors are prone to manipulation and stupidity, but lawmakers and law enforcement are no different. There has to be some sort of system to keep people who don't deserve to be in prison out of there when the law's judgement doesn't suffice.

>quicker than a rock in compton

?

Do any of you people know what a jury does or have ever served on one? Juries determine facts based on the testimony heard in court and the law as explained by the judge. Juries make no determination about the law; if they did so there would be no precident on which people could base their action, as the law would be different as seen by each jury. End of the 1000 years of legal history and evolution.

It's exceedingly rare to get an entire jury to to unanimously declare a jury nullification. if absolutely everyone can agree that a crime is not worth punishing then go for it.

It's a lot like that case that made international news in Italy not too long ago, where they said that homeless person stealing food to survive shouldn't be punished. It's still breaking the law, but most will agree that he shouldn't be punished for that.

>Juries determine facts based on the testimony heard in court and the law as explained by the judge.
True, this is the legal function of a jury. But there is not and cannot be any mechanism to determine whether the jury has decided in good faith. The legal system couldn't function of jurors were under threat of penalty.

The fact remains that it is true that "jurors can say not guilty" even when they think the defendant has broken a law. The judge can give some orders to the jury, and there are some behaviors that can get an active juror removed (screws up the whole trial), but there is no possible legally codifiable way to control the decision itself.

Knowing about this gets you kicked out of jury duty you know that right?

Which is why you lie.

Jury nullification is a legal loophole. It cuts both ways too. Technically jurors can find you guilty if they don't like you the same way that they can find you not guilty if they think the law is unjust.
Knowledge of jury nullification typically disqualifies you from serving anyway.

I don't really like how it encourages the "bastard had it coming" defense.

The jury is not there to decide questions of law, nor should they be.

Which can get you into serious trouble
Just don't fucking go you faggot
We don't need you letting of child molesters with the argument
>spooks shouldn't be crimes

>Which can get you into serious trouble

lolno

But nobody tells them they can, no lawyer who wanted a career would inform a jury of it, and the judge would throw out the verdict if they tried to.

They all have to know it's an option first. They can't think it's a radical decision to say that a law is bullshit, they have to understand it's what they're being asked to do; they're being asked if the defendant broke the law, and if it's a reasonable law. Reminding them that it was illegal to lie to the Nazi authorities if you knew the location of a Jewish family ought to be enough for most people...


And how many episodes of court TV shows depict a jury using this to help free an innocent man who is being harassed by people in positions of authority, like a cop or judge?

Random has to be better than leaving it to people who actively seek out the position of lawmaker.

I think they are told not to tell them about it unless the specifically ask but then will most likely be thrown out

youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ