Also by the same token, if we're letting people walk for things like pedophilia, murder, and firebombing, then we can also let people walk for killing those people. In a pool of potential jurors there's bound to be at least one person with the same viewpoint as yours, or if nothing else sympathetic to your viewpoints. Murderer got off due to jury nullification, but you killed him in a fit of rage? Totally cool man, I would have done the same.
If nothing else it promotes constructive anarchy, wherein for every egregious crime unpunished it allows for someone to go free for vigilantism against true threats to society. Not to say there won't be a lot of property damage and potential loss of life, but if we make it clear that violent actions will be responded to in kind people might actually keep their damn emotions in check.
This does however, remind me of a situation developing here in my city, where some DUI cases might have to be retried because as it turns out, the technicians operating breathalyzer tests didn't keep their certifications up to date. MADD is up in arms about some DUI suspects being allowed to walk Barring why we require certification for such a simple thing (put lips here, blow for a few seconds), I don't feel anyone should be worried, because a breathalyzer test isn't the end-all be-all for evidence. Material witnesses, evidence of destruction of property, and even injury and/or death are still valid, so I only think people who were apprehended at checkpoints might get a chance at walking.
As for DUI checkpoints and DUI laws, I'm simultaneously against drunk driving and against MADD's ludicrous positions.
I can see their point, but by the same token, in responding to this "crisis" (heavily on the quotes) in such a way they are becoming as bad as PETA, reacting to any little thing that has anything to do with what they stand for/against.
But that's off topic. Jury nullification can be used to say that yes, these people were tried correctly and therefore should not get a walk just because someone didn't do some paperwork.
The problem is that while trading and compromising are individual choices that everyone should be free to make, jury nullification is effectively 12 people deciding what the laws of an entire society should be. That's where I have a problem with it. There are important cases where someone has been found guilty (or not) in a ridiculous situation that have spurred legislatures to change laws. I think those wake-up calls are important.
In my eyes laws are about preventing actions that are contrary to a productive society. 12 people are considered enough to decide whether a wo/man has indeed carried out an action that is counter to society. In that light, if a jury decides that while yes, the action was within the letter of the law, but no, we don't feel the action was in fact counter to society, why shouldn't they say therefore, the defendant did not commit an action counter to society?
Furthermore, by your argument, why does SCOTUS get to decide what the laws mean, when twelve angry men apparently can't?
People are concentrating on the crime and whether or not they think it is something that should be illegal, such as saying not guilty to drug possession even when the person is guilty.
I am also thinking about sentencing. Let's say someone was a horrible crazy axe murderer. The evidence clearly shows they did something, and I believe that was a bad thing. However, a guilty verdict gives the death penalty, which is something I am opposed to no matter the circumstance. Shouldn't I say not guilty no matter what?
Take it a step further. During jury selection they ask me if there is any reason I wouldn't be able to judge objectively. I know if I say yes they will send me home. But I also know it is likely that person will die. I can potentially save their life by lying, getting on the jury, and saying not guilty. Am I now morally obligated to do so? Do I have their death on my hands if I had the opportunity to stop it, or at least delay it, and chose honesty and law-abidingness as more important virtues?
People are concentrating on the crime and whether or not they think it is something that should be illegal, such as saying not guilty to drug possession even when the person is guilty.
I am also thinking about sentencing. Let's say someone was a horrible crazy axe murderer. The evidence clearly shows they did something, and I believe that was a bad thing. However, a guilty verdict gives the death penalty, which is something I am opposed to no matter the circumstance. Shouldn't I say not guilty no matter what?
Take it a step further. During jury selection they ask me if there is any reason I wouldn't be able to judge objectively. I know if I say yes they will send me home. But I also know it is likely that person will die. I can potentially save their life by lying, getting on the jury, and saying not guilty. Am I now morally obligated to do so? Do I have their death on my hands if I had the opportunity to stop it, or at least delay it, and chose honesty and law-abidingness as more important virtues?
It is as always on a case-by-case basis. If you don't believe in the death penalty and are the only dissenting opinion then it will be a hung jury (as such because a criminal trial needs a unanimous vote either way), but that just means the defendant will be re-tried, potentially without you there. In which case yes you've done all you could to prevent someone being executed and upheld your beliefs.
However, I don't think there's any shame in claiming you cannot perform your duties objectively (at any rate everyone who claims they can is a dirty liar and potentially knows it anyway), also there being much in the way of legal blockage to actually killing a death row inmate (here in Kentucky we've had people living on Death Row for over two decades in some cases). If you decide to walk away I don't feel you've not held up your beliefs, as you were doing so from the standpoint that your feelings will get in the way of a legal proceeding.
I was super-busy today at work and I really regret missing this one.
@Steve: I want to check before I provide a counter-argument, but was your intent in several posts to suggests that individuals should not have the power to limit the consensus of the majority? That taking action to nullify an existing law is undemocratic?
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=1
If nothing else it promotes constructive anarchy, wherein for every egregious crime unpunished it allows for someone to go free for vigilantism against true threats to society. Not to say there won't be a lot of property damage and potential loss of life, but if we make it clear that violent actions will be responded to in kind people might actually keep their damn emotions in check.
This does however, remind me of a situation developing here in my city, where some DUI cases might have to be retried because as it turns out, the technicians operating breathalyzer tests didn't keep their certifications up to date. MADD is up in arms about some DUI suspects being allowed to walk Barring why we require certification for such a simple thing (put lips here, blow for a few seconds), I don't feel anyone should be worried, because a breathalyzer test isn't the end-all be-all for evidence. Material witnesses, evidence of destruction of property, and even injury and/or death are still valid, so I only think people who were apprehended at checkpoints might get a chance at walking.
As for DUI checkpoints and DUI laws, I'm simultaneously against drunk driving and against MADD's ludicrous positions.
But that's off topic. Jury nullification can be used to say that yes, these people were tried correctly and therefore should not get a walk just because someone didn't do some paperwork.
edit: Not to mention I don't think they're necessarily against alcohol, just against using a motor vehicle while under its influence.
Furthermore, by your argument, why does SCOTUS get to decide what the laws mean, when twelve angry men apparently can't?
I am also thinking about sentencing. Let's say someone was a horrible crazy axe murderer. The evidence clearly shows they did something, and I believe that was a bad thing. However, a guilty verdict gives the death penalty, which is something I am opposed to no matter the circumstance. Shouldn't I say not guilty no matter what?
Take it a step further. During jury selection they ask me if there is any reason I wouldn't be able to judge objectively. I know if I say yes they will send me home. But I also know it is likely that person will die. I can potentially save their life by lying, getting on the jury, and saying not guilty. Am I now morally obligated to do so? Do I have their death on my hands if I had the opportunity to stop it, or at least delay it, and chose honesty and law-abidingness as more important virtues?
However, I don't think there's any shame in claiming you cannot perform your duties objectively (at any rate everyone who claims they can is a dirty liar and potentially knows it anyway), also there being much in the way of legal blockage to actually killing a death row inmate (here in Kentucky we've had people living on Death Row for over two decades in some cases). If you decide to walk away I don't feel you've not held up your beliefs, as you were doing so from the standpoint that your feelings will get in the way of a legal proceeding.
@Steve: I want to check before I provide a counter-argument, but was your intent in several posts to suggests that individuals should not have the power to limit the consensus of the majority? That taking action to nullify an existing law is undemocratic?