So many of our once-cherished standards boiled down to the presumption that certain norms would be upheld.
Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court?
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
This is a super unpopular opinion in 2025, but I’m a grown up and happy to take the downvotes.
Jury Nullification isn’t really a “thing” as in it’s not intended to be a function available to the jury.
The justice system intends for Jury’s to perform a very specific function: to find a defendant guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
However, jurors must be able to make that determination free from any concerns as to repercussions against them. The system couldn’t work if a juror feared being held responsible for their finding. Imagine if overlooking or misinterpreting something as a juror could be a crime? It would present a very ready mechanism for corruption “Any juror that finds Trump guilty will be subject to prosecution by the next republican government”.
So, jurors have absolute protection from any responsibility as to their findings, and as such they are able to say “we think luigi probably did commit this crime but he seems like a great guy so our unanimous finding is not-guilty”.
It’s a subversion of the justice system. Jurors may take this third option without consequence but they are not upholding their responsibilities to the justice system.
My concern with jury nullification is that if jurors can decide whether the law should apply in whatever case, they’re essentially making up the law based on nothing more than their feelings about what happened. Additionally, it makes a court case more of a popularity contest than a fair application of the law.
The common rebuttal to what I’ve said is that the justice system is rarely just. That may be the case but justice is not going to be improved by moving to a kangaroo court. We may as well throw defendants in the river and pronounce those who do not drown to be guilty.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 days ago
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The common rebuttal to what I’ve said is that the justice system is rarely just. That may be the case but justice is not going to be improved by moving to a kangaroo court. We may as well throw defendants in the river and pronounce those who do not drown to be guilty.
I would agree with you if it worked the other way. If jurors could say: okay, he didn’t do the arson, but something’s off and he should go to jail anyway, that would not be a functional justice system. As it is, having jury nullification just makes it a looser system, nowhere near kangaroo court.
davidgro@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Jury nullification can be used for evil.
From Wikipedia:“White defendants accused of crimes against black people and other minorities were often acquitted by all-white juries, especially in the South, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. An example is the trial of Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam.”
So I do think it’s a bit of a mixed bag.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It can, but I’d still rather criminals walk free than people who didn’t do anything wrong be punished.
I guess it comes down to this: I think twelve randos are less likely to be racist than our legal system.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
It is absolutely a mixed bag. Ideally, jury nullification would never be used, because none of our laws would be unjust or improper to apply.
But, we have had “Fugitive Slave Acts” on our books for the majority of our history: acts that criminalize providing aid and assistance to escaped slaves, or failing to deliver them to their “owners”.
We cannot pretend our legislature has never been corrupt, or will never be corrupt in the future. Jury Nullification is an important check on an out-of-control legislature.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
what do you mean a “looser” system? Do you mean like, good baddies like luigi walk but bad baddies like mexicans or weird looking people don’t?
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I mean more people generally walk away. When designing a legal system, you have to decide whether it’s better that guilty people go free or that innocent people are punished. I’m fully on the side of the former, and jury nullification is basically an extra release valve.
Luigi’s obviously a sensation right now, but jn is imo even better for situations like those sisters who lit their father on fire after he raped them for years (I don’t want to dig too deep because it’s depressing, so I don’t have a source, but this could just as easily be hypothetical). The legal system is not going to codify how much the victim must abuse you before your snapping is justified, because that’s impossible. The jury gets to decide on a case by case basis, whether the immolation was a crime or not.
In a perfect legal system, we might not need it, but not only is that impossible, the US has in some respects the farthest from a perfect system currently in place.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Sure. The problem I have with such a “release valve” is that it would be inherently unjust. Of course some defendents of a certain race or gender or appearance would be more likely to have their case nullified.
If you think courts should be more lenient, then codify it in law. The reason why it’s not codified, is because punishments are already designed to be appropriate to the crime.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 days ago
The justice system arises from Article III of the Constitution. The Justice system is one of the three branches of government, and is subject to the Separation of Powers.
Jurors are not members of the justice system. They aren’t members of the government. They are laypersons. Peers of the accused. They are the “We The People” mentioned in the preamble: The source whence all constitutional powers arise.
Jurors have no responsibilities to the justice system. A juror’s responsibility is to the accused. 6th Amendment.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
You haven’t actually rebutted anything I’ve said.
That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.
A system where jurors just nullify cases when they don’t dig the vibe is obviously not a justice system.
The only reason the western world is falling all over themselves to believe in jury nullification is because our justice system is completely unjust and wealthy people can just string things out indefinitely.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Enlighten me. What do you think that reason is?
From where I’m sitting, you have dismissed the entire purpose of a layperson jury as “semantics”, so I would really like to know what “reason” you are talking about.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
The role of the jury in criminal trials is to review questions of fact and to determine guilt or innocence according to the law.