Libertarianism - the absence of compassion?

Rym

And with that, our democratic system has decided that I have the right to nullify when sitting on a jury. ^_~

Kilarney

You kill me!

Although to clarify the record... Vermont (where I am) recognizes no such right.
I actually had a case where the defense attorney tried to argue for nullification and the judge did not allow him to. Likewise, the judge will not instruct the jury that they may exercise a nullification option.
Of course if the jurors do it in secret, there is nothing you can do about that.

Rym

Yes, the current precedent is that a juror may not be instructed in a court of law about nullification, either by a judge or advocate, but they are well within their rights to exercise it if they either knew ahead of time or were informed by a fellow juror.

Starfox

Technically, I don't think it's a right, it's just a side effect of how our juries are set up. If someone recieves a not guilty verdict, they cannot be tried again. Also, jurors cannot be punished for any verdict handed down. Even if you could PROVE (I think unlikely) that the jury nullified the case, I don't think it could be possible to do anything about it. Double jeopardy and whatnot.

EDIT: apparently it's a de facto power of the jury:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The combination of the immunity from punishment and protection from double jeopardy ensures the ability to nullify.

Kilarney

"De facto" doesn't mean it's a right. It just means that it is an inevitable by-product of how our system is set up.

Starfox

"De facto" doesn't mean it's a right. It just means that it is an inevitable by-product of how our system is set up.

Technically, I don't think it's a right, it's just a side effect of how our juries are set up.

That's what I said.

Kilarney

Sorry... I though your EDIT meant that you were changing your mind to say that it is a right because it is de facto. My bad.

Starfox

No, just added the wiki article for clarification.

tuttle88

In Australia we have compulsory 3rd Party Insurance which means that if you hit someone else with your car the person isn't completely fucked if you have no money. Which personally I think is a great idea because it isn't the person getting hit's fault that you hit them. But the compulsory insurance is only for injurys to third parties and if you want further insurance you have the choice. I don't know if you get a choice of what company you use for the compulsory insurance my mother organised it and she hasn't made me start paying for my insurance yet (probably because she knows that I couldn't afford it and would crash my car and not afford repairs and get sued for damaging other people's cars and would then ask her for money).