Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court?
Triasha@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoIf I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.
Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court?
Triasha@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoIf I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks 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.
Triasha@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If you want to abrogate your responsibility as a citizen that’s your choice.
I will not be an unthinking cog in a deeply flawed legal system.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
That’s the whole debate though. What is your responsibility as a citizen?
I’m so weary of talking about it ad-nauseam.
Ultimately these questions about jury nullification are irrelevant because you’ll never have 12 jurors who think subverting the court process can achieve justice.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
The only responsibilities on the individual that are prescribed by the constitution arise under the Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16: the Militia clauses.
You have no other constitutional responsibilities as a citizen.
A legislated law obligating you to apply legislated law in judging the accused would violate the accused’s 6th amendment right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Such a law would make you an agent of the government, not a layperson juror. The legislature can compel you to report for jury service; the legislature cannot impose any sort of responsibility to render a particular verdict.
You have no (relevant) legislative-law responsibilities as a citizen.
You have yet to talk about the most important part of the constitution. The first three words. You’ve completely ignored them all this time. Either you don’t understand them, or you think they are irrelevant. They are the sine qua non of this issue. Ultimately, those three words rebut every single point against nullification you have made, every ad-nauseating time you have made them.
Injustice requires a unanimous verdict. The accused doesn’t need 12 for the trial to reach a just end. He only needs one. A hung jury is always a just jury.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 weeks ago
That same system also explicitly enables the executive to pardon the accused outright, specifically exempting them from the laws created on behalf of the citizenry. The system itself tells us that legislated laws should not be considered sacrosanct.
The juror’s role is external to that system. Jurors are not representatives of the government, and owe no duties to that government, nor any part of that government.
Juries typically accept legislated law because they choose to. Generally speaking, a jury should abide by the will of the legislature. But, they are not beholden. They are constitutionally empowered to determine that a particular law did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the accused, and would be unjust to apply.
Demanding that a jury obey the legislature without consideration of their greater constitutional obligation to the accused makes them a representative of the government, rather than a layperson jury.