Comment

Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court?

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

source
- Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.
  
  source
- idiomaddict@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.
  
  source
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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?

source
- idiomaddict@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.
    
    source