Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Jury Nullification and Murder
Rym said that he doubted that anyone would use jury nullification to let somebody get away with murder in this day and age. I submit that an anti-abortion extremist on a jury would vote to acquit someone accused of bombing an abortion clinic or killing an "abortion doctor."
Please note that I said an anti-abortion extremist, not an average "pro-lifer."
Please note that I said an anti-abortion extremist, not an average "pro-lifer."
Comments
I doubt many racists in the South advertised that fact when they were potential jurors.
Rym says that every freedom has its "costs." Extending this argument, the murderer walking is just the "cost" of Rym's freedom to use nullifcation for the guy who got caught possessing a joint.
Scary stuff.
The point Rym was trying to say is that if you send one person to jail for a unjust reason. Lets say for smoking Pot or downloading music. That's worse then letting a murderer go free. Penn said on his radio show a statement that makes perfect sense. "Freedom is not important when you are doing something Smart, freedom is the ability to do something dumb"
Currently people get off of murder all the time because they have the money to burn on a awesome defense. While many innocent people get put away for crimes they didn't commit because they have crappy lawyers.
Jury Nullification provides a important safeguard to pervent our freedoms from being taken away, It can be abused like all freedoms but it's important to keep it. Just like all freedom however you have to use it responsibly. (or suffer for it)
I think the best way to balance this is the solution of charging accused murders on a national level, if the prosecutor believes that he cannot obtain locally a fair jury. This gives the prosecutor a wide panel of jurors to select from and hopefully always for more justice.
The point Rym was trying to say is that if you send one person to jail for a unjust reason. Lets say for smoking Pot or downloading music. That's worse then letting a murderer go free
>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? When was the last time a casual pot smoker or a casual file downloader went to jail? Be realistic.
Here's the problem with your argument...
As a juror, it's not for you to decide what laws are fair and what laws aren't. By doing so, you are effectively saying that you have no respect for our democracy. It is up to society to define our laws - not the individual. This is what shields us from the absurd results you've mentioned.
It may not be convenient, but living in an organized society requires compromise. Don't mix "freedom" with anarchy. You have the freedom to work to change your laws. You have freedoms given to you by the constitution. You have the "freedom" to speak and make your argument. "Freedom", however, does not mean short-circuiting democracy and/or the judicial process. I submit that anything that runs conter to democracy also runs counter to "freedom."
Put yourself in somebody else's shoes. You are black. You've been severely beaten by a white man in retaliation for looking at his girlfriend. There is a trial where the evidence is overwhelming that the defendant is guilty - including his confession that the "n*gger had it coming."
The defendant is aquitted by an all white jury. You go home to live your life in fear.
You call what the jury did a matter of exercising their "freedom." I submit that the jury just suppressed freedom. (the freedom to live your life without being targeted because of your race.) See what happens when you don't look at this in a vaccuum?
The presumption of innocence has NOTHING to do with jury nullification. Jury nullifcation only comes into play when the presumption of innocence has been overcome.
I mean think about it. Let's say you were on a jury in the 50's or 60's and some black guy was arrested for drinking at the white water fountain. They had a film of him doing it. Would you really say guilty? I say it's ok to weed people out of juries based on extreme viewpoints like racism or sexism. It is not ok to weed people out of juries because they are too smart, they know their rights or they know about jury nullification. If you do that, then the judicial system will perform in its function as a check on the legislature. Unpopular laws will fail to be enforced while accepted laws will be executed properly. Our elected officials often vote contrary to the opinion of the majority of their constituents. Jury nullification is just another way to fend off unjust laws.
When you get right down to it I think there is really only one area in which we differ. That is that I don't believe in democracy that much. Barring forms of government in which absolute power is embodied in a small number of people, democracy isn't really any worse or better than anything else. I fight for what is just, fair and free regardless of what is legal or popular.
The problem is that while you may be reasonable, many others are not.
When inidividuals are allowed to usurp the law, you are going to have serious problems.
Jury nullification is just that. If ONE individual ignores the law, then a defendant is NOT convicted. So forget the argument that the jury has to have some sort of "consensus." All it takes is one wacko.
So... let's say you decide that you will not convict the pot smoker. (And let's forget the whole argument that your beliefs may not be the best for society.) You then create a system where anyone with any agenda can mold the criminal justice system to fit their viewpoint.
Assuming there is no question as to guilt:
Maybe the NAMBLA member chooses to let a pedophile go. (In his mind, pedophilia is just a right as your belief about marijuana.)
Maybe the racist lets the skinhead go.
Maybe minister lets the abortion protester go.
And on and on and on and on...
Each of these persons was just as convinced that they were right as you are. And none of us would argue that they are not entitled to their opinion.
The reason we have juries is for consensus. Jury nullification destroys that fundamental fairness by allowing one juror to usurp community consensus.
If you have any understanding of democracy, then you've GOT to understand that democracy depends on a buffer between the desire of the individual and the desire of society.
You say that you fight for what is "just, fair and free."
Charles Manson thought that it was "just, fair and free" to kill others.
See what happens when you don't reconcile your own beliefs with the needs of society?
I applaud your right to be able to form your own beliefs... but at some point you have to accept that living in a safe and orderly society requires some compromise. It shouldn't be too much to ask. After all, other people have needs as well.
See the problem?
I encourage you to "fight for what is just, fair and free."
Just do it in a way that is not damaging to society - that's our only difference.
Apreche,
You've succumbed to a fundamental misunderstading.
Jury Nullification is the act of letting a GUILTY person go free for some other reason.
I agree... innocent people should not go to jail. We have a system designed to let guilty people go free (by implementing the "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard")... but that's a whole different subject matter.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
You may not agree with the law... but the person is GUILTY. That's a fundamental distiction.
Jury nullifcation merely serves to increase the number of guilty people roaming the streets without having ANY impact on innocent persons.
So if you believe in jury nullifcation to protect the innocent... time to rethink the issue.
Jury nullifcation has NO IMPACT whatsover on the innocents.
If democracy is so important, then so is nullification. If enough people in a society want to let NAMBLA freaks or murderers off the hook that it makes a noticeable impact on juries, then that is what the society desires and what they should get.
And people DO go to jail for minor drug offenses every day. The majority of prisoners in the us are for purely drug-related crimes. I fully believe that, if you released every drug prisoner in the US, society would be better off. The prison complex is self-sustaining and profit-generating, and there is incentive to increase the number of prisoners...
If someone is guilty of a law I find unjust, then I consider them innocent of wrongdoing. Convicting them is a grave injustice in my eyes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A fundamental distinction. Thanks for the clarification. They are not innocent in the as to the law, they are innocent of "wrongdoing" in your "opinion."
Insomuch as you feel that your opinions should trump the consensus of our society... I guess I can't stop you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If democracy is so important, then so is nullification. If enough people in a society want to let NAMBLA freaks or murderers off the hook that it makes a noticeable impact on juries, then that is what the society desires and what they should get.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a piece of logic, this argument crumbles like a dry piece of bleu cheese. If enough people in society want to let NAMBLA freaks run around, then society will allow it. That is what democracy is all about. Nullifcation, on the other hand, is a weapon used by those who disagree with societal norms to circumvent the will of the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And people DO go to jail for minor drug offenses every day. The majority of prisoners in the us are for purely drug-related crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrong... just wrong....
The majority of prisoners in the US are NOT in jail for drug related offenses. In state prisons, the percentage of persons serving time because they are drug violaters is about 22%. You call that a majority?
In federal prison, the number is about 53%, and is decreasing.
When you combine the federal and state populations, it is not a majority.
Now... let's address the issue of minor drug offenders being put in jail.
This just doesn't happen. It's a convenient myth for the pro-drug lobby, but it's just not true.
Don't you see the flaws in your logic? "If the majority of people in jail are there for drug-offenses, then people must be put in jail everyday for minor offenses." Huh??!! That's quite the leap!
The VAST majority of incarcerated drug offenders in state prison are there because either:
a) They were dealing drugs or possessed quantities well beyond personal use; or
b) They were on probation, furlough, etc and violated the terms of their release by possessing drugs - or they have very long and very serious criminal records and pick up a new offense.
You also have to be careful about how drug offenders are categorized. A heroin addict who robs a bank to feed their addiction may very well be classified as a "drug offender." Wouldn't you agree that they should go to jail?
As for the feds, they do NOT put people in jail for minor drug offenses. I work in a border area - and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the feds are too busy to deal with minor offenses. Heck, they are too busy to deal with many bigger offenses. We had a recent case where the feds declined to prosecute someone who got caught at the border with 20lbs of marijuana. (the person was referred for State prosecution) That's how busy they are with the bigger guys. So please... be realistic about this.
I don't want to debate the drug laws... since that's well outside the scope of jury nullification. I respect your opinion. Differing opinions is what makes our country great. (And I don't claim to be an expert on how to handle the drug issue) I just want to set your fallacy straight.
Also, my use of the phrase "usurp community consensus" applied to the time of jury deliberation.
Specifically, I meant that one person (let's create a fictional person - let's call him Rym) decides that they will ignore the law as created by community consensus. That's all I meant. I just meant to show that this is NOT someone who is carrying out the will of the people. No... it's not Gandalf riding down the hill on his shiny white horse. My fictitious guy is just a guy follows his own beliefs to the detriment of societal good.
The problem with believeing in democracy is that it involves compromise...and compromise sucks! But the ability to think of the good of the whole is a trait that is admirable - and necessary for a safe and functioning society.
I keep coming back to this, but freedom does not equal the right to do whatever you want whenever you want. Freedom is about the "people". There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about just what "freedom" means. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. It talks about the "people" - not the "person."
Thanks for putting up with me! Sorry this newcomer was such a bull in a china shop!
No one says that freedom is doing whatever you want. This is a straw man. Also, only individuals can have rights in the first place. "The people" are simply a group of individuals with individual rights.
The problems with your argument thus far is that it assumes that there are far more extremists then there actually are, and that in every case they will elect to nullify. I don't see this as being the case, and our overcrowded prisons are certainly evidence for that.
we keep talking about racists and murders and forget that the law generally gets used in the case of bootleggers and "morality" laws like that law in North Carolina that doesn't allow two nonmarried co-eds to live together. You get rid of all the stupid crazy laws on the books and then you won't have to worry about the concept of Jury Nulification. I figure with or without Jury Nulifcation you'll occasionally get a butthead Jury member who ends up creating a hung jury.
Let's say there were a prison. In that prison there are a million rapists, murders, sex offenders, war criminals and every other evil you can think of. There is one person in that prison who isn't guilty of anything I view as wrong. It is irrelevant whether or not that one person's actions are legal or illegal.
Now give me a choice. Either everyone stays in the prison, or everyone goes free. I will always choose to set them all free. Saving one innocent from prison is worth the danger of setting all those bad people free as well. If those bad people are really bad we'll see them again soon. The innocent person will be saved from the greatest injustice of all.
Jury nullification can only serve to keep people out of prison, not put them in. Anything that makes it less likely for innocents to be found guilty is a good thing in my eyes.
Unfortunately, the sentiment that it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than it is to punish one innocent person is becoming the exception these days, not the rule. Add that to the fact that government is getting the power to snoop into people's private lives without having to show probable cause, and you have a dangerous combination. (Examples: FISA violations, "sneak and peek" warrants, monitoring phone calls, e-mail, "no fly lists," etc. etc.)
If people really wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the legal system, everyone who is entitled to a jury trial should demand one. There is no way that the courts could handle such a request, even though the law says that they would have to. It would bring our judicial system to a screeching halt.
You are put onto the jury in a case where a gay man has been charged with sodomy, a crime punishable in this case by death. The facts of the case are quite clear: there are several witnesses, a video of the "crime," and expert DNA evidence.
Would you, in good conscience, vote "guilty" regardless?
In any event... its a fairly absurd example since the death penalty is not associated with any sodomy statutes. So while it's hypothetical, it has no relevance to our laws.
That was a decent dodge, but the question is still relevant. ^_~