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

• atomicorange@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.

  source

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?

    That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.

    This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.

    source

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      You’re the one saying a moral argument is “unrealistic”.

      source

      • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Can you clarify what you’re actually saying?

        If you’re trying to imply that a more moral person would see things your way, I couldn’t care less. It’s a pretty meaningless assertion.

        You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.

        That’s simply not how laws are intended to be applied. Democratically elected representatives debate moral considerations when designing laws. If you want criminal law to include an exemption for murderers of CEOs that you don’t like, you should write to your local rep I guess.

        In the mean time, jurors will just have to apply the law as it stands.

        source

        • -> View More Comments