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

• 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

      • Triasha@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        If I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        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.

        This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.

        “We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.

        The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.

        Where the juror is convinced that the legislated law does not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.

        The jury is NEVER obligated to return an unjust verdict.

        source

        • -> View More Comments