Jury Nullification

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why capital trials are nuts, because they ask jurors "would you be willing to consider imposing the death penalty."

This ends ends up with some people that say "I don't like it, but if its the law I'll do it." Also the people that seemingly would like to throw the switch if given the chance.

It excludes anyone that wouldn't impost the death penalty, which then leaves us with a jury that is a little trigger happy. This is like #495 of 3924898 reasons why the system is flawed, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that the defense gets to exclude jurors as well, right? And any decent defense lawyer would get "people that seemingly would like to throw the switch if given the chance" excluded for cause and not even use up their discretionary exclusions.

Anyway, I really disagree with jury nullification. For one, legally jury nullification is *not* a right. It's merely a de facto power afforded juries due to the reluctance of the court to examine juror's reasonings.

Second, nullification scares me because it can easily go either way. If you perpetuate the notion that juries don't have to follow the law when they don't like it, don't you think we'll start to see juries ignoring that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" bit when the defendant looks guilty? Or when the crime is controversial enough that the jury feels it *has* to lock up the accused even though the state didn't really make a case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever sat on a jury before? Do you know how incredibly uncomfortable it is to be the lone person on one side of the vote with 11 others on the other side of the vote? There is an incredible amount of pressure in such situations.

If there is a jury where 11 happen to know of nullification (which is extremely unlikely) they could proably easily convince the 12th to come along. But if there is a case where 11 of 12 think the law is unjust, or being unjustly applied, then it is most likely a situation where 95% or more of the populace agrees with them (or would if they knew of the circumstances).

However, if there is one lone guy who wants to convince the 11 others there is incredible pressure for that lone person to cave and not even try to struggle against the overwhelming majority. So I think it is very very unlikely where nutjobs are going to convince the majority to nullify in situations that do not call for it.

There was a case one time where a juror told the others about jury nullification (the idea that if the law is unjust in their eyes they can dismiss despite evidence clearly showing they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt despite the judges instructions). They sent out a note asking the judge 'what is jury nulllification' or words to that effect. Evidently they were game for the idea given the circumstnaces. Well the judge sends back a note saying it doesn't exist and they are instructed to obey the law so they wound up convicting the guy (or possibly it was a hung jury, don't remember). So it is very, very hard to get 12 people to go along with such notions. When 12 jurors agree to do so I think the overwhelming majority of cases the overwhelming majority of the public would feel the same way.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why capital trials are nuts, because they ask jurors "would you be willing to consider imposing the death penalty."

This ends ends up with some people that say "I don't like it, but if its the law I'll do it." Also the people that seemingly would like to throw the switch if given the chance.

It excludes anyone that wouldn't impost the death penalty, which then leaves us with a jury that is a little trigger happy. This is like #495 of 3924898 reasons why the system is flawed, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that the defense gets to exclude jurors as well, right? And any decent defense lawyer would get "people that seemingly would like to throw the switch if given the chance" excluded for cause and not even use up their discretionary exclusions.

Anyway, I really disagree with jury nullification. For one, legally jury nullification is *not* a right. It's merely a de facto power afforded juries due to the reluctance of the court to examine juror's reasonings.

Second, nullification scares me because it can easily go either way. If you perpetuate the notion that juries don't have to follow the law when they don't like it, don't you think we'll start to see juries ignoring that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" bit when the defendant looks guilty? Or when the crime is controversial enough that the jury feels it *has* to lock up the accused even though the state didn't really make a case?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that jury nullification is a special case of the general principle of following your conscience even when it maybe difficult or uncomfortable to do so.

Right is right and wrong is wrong, and it is wrong to do wrong even if the law, or the judge, or one's own very best friend or spouse so urges.

I think most people understand this, but when placed "on the spot" in a situation such as in a courtroom, they tend to freeze up thus becoming more easily controlled or influenced by authority-appearing figures.

The key to overcoming this sort of freeze-up is to remember where true spiritual authority comes from (not from man or courts).

Another way to break out of such a psychological freeze-up in many situations, is to employ the old trick of envisioning everyone in the room in their underwear (this also happens to be an invaluable technique for overcoming stage fright if ever you find you must speak in front of an audience).

If people would truly follow their consciences (I know it's much harder said than done), there wouldn't be a need for informing people about things such as jury nullification (it would come naturally to them). Similarly, if people would fully follow their consciences, there would be no executioners or mean people in this world.

The confusion of the world, along with straying from the source of spirituality, weakens people to the point that they no longer see the inner light or the light that is felt everywhere but never fully seen.

Forgiveness is the most important part of transcendent spirituality and love. Why have the courts, and especially many judges and lawyers and police, forgotten this? This is why Jesus had to die for everyone, because people so broke God's heart, but still He loved them.

Some think the answer is to make people follow 10,000 rules, when really there are only a few rules worth following.

Thanks for reading, and any comments welcomed.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, nullification scares me because it can easily go either way ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the notion of doing away with jury nullification to be absolutely terrifying. You've probably served on a jury before so perhaps you'd agree that the legal system does just about anything it can to quash this power and right that citizens have.

As an aside, my experience gave me the impression that prospective jurors frequently lie when questioned about their believes.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, nullification scares me because it can easily go either way. If you perpetuate the notion that juries don't have to follow the law when they don't like it, don't you think we'll start to see juries ignoring that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" bit when the defendant looks guilty? Or when the crime is controversial enough that the jury feels it *has* to lock up the accused even though the state didn't really make a case?

[/ QUOTE ]

The math makes this incredibly unlikely. It takes all 12 jurors to convict. It only takes one to not convict. The situation is totally asymmetric, and doesn't really "go either way."