Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court?
Triasha@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoIf 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 2 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 days 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.