Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court?
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoGoodness 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.
atomicorange@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You’re the one saying a moral argument is “unrealistic”.
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.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
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.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just made up poppycock that sounds nice.
I’m sure that wherever that’s written down in the “rules” it also says all good dogs go to heaven right?
Anyhow, as we seem to have exhausted your repertoire of made up constitutional wisdom I think I’ll leave you to continue reassuring yourself that the founding fathers invented jury nullification and wanted Luigi to walk free.
While I look forward to reading your final parting dispensation of mythical wondery, I will not reply.
Triasha@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
That’s the argument.
You might feel thats how things ought to be but you’re unable to support your statement with anything other than the vibe.
We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.
If you feel that someone who kills a CEO you don’t like should be exempt from a charge of murder then you should discuss that with your local representative.