Originally Posted By barboy "I think that you don't believe in the system of laws that we all voted on and that govern our lives. That place to change them is the ballot box not the jury box." I find this passage outrageous, ignorant and shocking coming from a jurist. I would have expected it to come from 99 out of 100 laymen but certainly not a judge or court commissioner. The courtroom is not just an appropriate but a splendid arena to change public policy especially if it is done by the common folk(jury)and not by the appellate courts.
Originally Posted By alexbook When I started this thread, I was hoping for discussions of posters' personal experiences, not a debate on the jury system. If I'd wanted to start that, I would have posted in World Events. Seeing as how that's the direction we've gone, I've decided to ask the moderators to move this thread.
Originally Posted By barboy Hey jonvn, it's useless to try and explain the fundamentals of a healthy indirect democracy to people who have been conditioned to fall in line like sheep or to those who fail to do their own thinking. Like I said earlier even jurists can't grasp the fundamentals of jury nullification.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder 'I am no lawyer, but I just don't think that's true. I think the jury's job is to decide whether or not the person committed that crime. Period. Guilty or not guilty. Any lawyers/judges out there who can speak to this?" I've wanted to stay out of this thread, but after all that's been posted, I'll contribute this- Jury nullification isn't as black and white as jonvn would have it. Yes, it exists, and essentially, it can be used in the manner he describes. HOWEVER, there are many appellate cases over a long period of time that deal with it to one degree or another, and opinions are mixed. Most trial courts loathe a juror who does not disclose during voir dire (jury selection) that they would have a problem applying the law to the facts of the case to be presented. There is some case law that says jurors are encouraged to tell the judge about any juror who has such a hidden agenda and get them disqualified. Most case law says that courts do not have to tell juries before deliberations about nullification. They are to apply the law as codified to the facts of the case and reach a verdict. There is at least one California case that says judges do not have to tell juries about nullification. There are some judges who will nullify the jury's verdict if the court suspects something going on and pronounce their own verdict. The train of thought here is that if a citizen doesn't like a law, there are other avenues for change. Petition lawmakers, vote for lawmakers in favor of the necessary change, or even run for office yourself to effect change. While yes, one can legally do it, it's a slippery slope, and one that in theory, suggests anarchy. We're a nation of laws, and overall, citizens don't have an unabated right to decide which ones they'll abide without consequences.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >"I think that you don't believe in the system of laws that we all voted on and that govern our lives. That place to change them is the ballot box not the jury box." I find this passage outrageous, ignorant and shocking coming from a jurist. I would have expected it to come from 99 out of 100 laymen but certainly not a judge or court commissioner.< One of the problems with this thread is that people haven't been allowed to disagree with barboy here and jonvn without being called immoral, ignorant, and other various and sundry insults. You might find it ignorant barbouy, but others might find your attitude repulsive. I'm just sayin'. Moreover, barboy needs to read a little closer. the poster said he was a government employee, NOT a jurist. He could be a postal carrier for all we know. And, his position is comeletely valid and one avenue many of us in the legal profession encourage people to do, as I said in my other post. The legal profession is divided on this issue, as I also alluded to earlier. Nullification exists, but that doesn't mean it is an effective way of dealing with the system.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's not anarchy. It's one of the ways the public has to keep the government from running away with its power. But it is true, it, like anything else, can be abused. The best example of this is an all white jury failing to convict another white person for a lynching. This happens, too. "We're a nation of laws" There are all kinds of laws, and they are created in all kinds of ways. They are enforced in all kinds of ways as well. Some laws, like ones I've mentioned, such as libel law, and the end of prohibition, came directly out of this process. This is one avenue of how people in this country can make a difference. It's not anarchy, it's democracy. It gives power to the public in a manner that speaks to the public having a say in what is right and wrong. So of course many judges and prosecutors do not like it. But it is a responsibility you have as a jury member to engage in. People are not machines or computers, and the jury is there specifically and exactly as a check against abuse of government power. That people don't like this is not a good thing for democracy.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Moreover, barboy needs to read a little closer. the poster said he was a government employee, NOT a jurist.<< The original quote was from disneydad109. I believe he has said in other threads that he is or has been a judge. For the record, I'm a supporter of jury nullification, at least in theory. I'm NOT a fan of some of the insults being thrown around in this thread. They seem particularly out of place in the "Community Discussion" section of a web site called "Laughing Place".
Originally Posted By jonvn "without being called immoral, ignorant, and other various and sundry insults" Let's take this back a step in time. It's 1855. You're on a jury where someone is accused of harboring an escaped slave who is trying to be free. It is obvious the person did this. If you vote to convict, you send someone back to slavery, you send someone to jail for trying to free someone from slavery. That's the law. So, you vote to convict? What do your morals tell you? You would vote to convict, because "that's the law?" You'll be sending a slave back to the south, to be whipped and beaten and lord knows what else because that was the law? Is that about it? I want this explained to me. I want it explained how this is in any way not immoral.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's strawman, wholly inapplicable to today, as nullification is to some.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The original quote was from disneydad109. I believe he has said in other threads that he is or has been a judge." Okay, I did not know that, or remember it anyway if I had before. I didn't see it here, which is why I wrote that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's strawman, wholly inapplicable to today, as nullification is to some." Of course it's not a strawman. I'm not saying it's anyone else's argument, and it's completely applicable today. It's a question of applying your morality to the law as presented to you. And in this case, it's a law that is without a doubt wrong. You're simply trying to evade the question, because you know you wouldn't vote to convict.
Originally Posted By jonvn And, nullification is not inapplicable today, as laws continue to be passed that still can be wrong. Many people consider the draconian drug laws in this country to be wrong. Whether you agree with them or not is beside the point, it is a law that many consider to be wrong. That juries are not told they can use their own judgement in this keeps the power within the government. In fact, this is what set John DeLorean free. He plainly was guilty of his cocaine dealings, but the government acted in such a venal manner with him that the jury nullified.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You're simply trying to evade the question, because you know you wouldn't vote to convict." I don't know how much more direct I can be. It's a strawman. Your hypo is inapplicable to today as that type of situation doesn't present itself anymore. Nullification may have had its time and place once, but today, maybe not so much.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd There's a big difference between slavery and a drug crime. Don't think Lincoln would have the same impact on American history if he freed the potheads.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't know how much more direct I can be. It's a strawman" You can be direct by answering the question. It doesn't fit the definition of a strawman at all. But I think we already know the answer, you'd not vote to convict, because you think the situation is morally wrong. This is the exact same thing that is applicable today, not that exact same law, but the idea of applying your morals to laws that exist today. "There's a big difference between slavery and a drug crime." Depends. DO you think someone should be sentenced to prison for say five years if they sold pot to an adult? I don't. I think that's an outrageous thing to do. Now, if he sold it to a kid? That's a different story. But that again goes to the facts of the matter, and applying your own sense of right and wrong to the issue involved.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't know how much more direct I can be. It's a strawman" You can be direct by answering the question. It doesn't fit the definition of a strawman at all. But I think we already know the answer, you'd not vote to convict, because you think the situation is morally wrong." So now you're also omnipotent as well, getting in my head and knowing the answer. Why bother to ask?
Originally Posted By jonvn So you're saying you would vote to convict the person who was hiding an escaped slave? That's the other option. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying you would not.
Originally Posted By jonvn Perfect example. This could should have been convicted of nothing. There was nothing wrong with what he did. But he was convicted and was sentenced to ten years. At least he's out now after two. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law /10/26/wilson.freed/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By barboy Very good example This is why many jurors need to stop being mindless drones and put an end to absurd laws.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Sigghh. Yeah, let's bring up an example like slavery and then expect to apply it to today as it relates to nullification. Doesn't pass the smell test.
