3 ms·
I wish jurors would understand their role is to protect the innocent from prosecutorial overreach, not rubber-stamp the prosecution's assertion that a law has b
by spdustin 10y ago
I wish jurors would understand their role is to protect the innocent from prosecutorial overreach, not rubber-stamp the prosecution's assertion that a law has been broken. They have more power than the judge (who is really just supposed to enforce procedural rules and maintain order) because they can vote against the law! Imagine, a jury filled with jurors who know that:
A) They can't be punished for their verdict
B) They can, and should, consider the rule of law, and not just the veracity of the evidence as is often directed by the judge
C) They have the authority to say "okay, the evidence shows the defendant is guilty, but we don't think the law is a just one, so we're going to acquit."
Sometimes, that power is used for good (not convicting those who helped runaway slaves, for example, or not convicting minor drug offenses, keeping our disgustingly overcrowded county jails from adding to their rolls) and sometimes not (the officers acquitted despite video evidence of their beating Rodney King).
It is, however, an exemplar of the checks-and-balances meant to constrain a government that may otherwise overstep its boundaries to violate a citizen's rights. While the rights afforded to a jury are in danger of changing, they haven't changed yet, and potential jurors everywhere in the US should read up more on their rights and responsibilities as a juror.
- burkaman 10y agoI don't think it's correct to say jury nullification is part of the designed system of checks and balances. It's really an unintended side effect of the jury system, since jurors have to be immune from any punishment or the system wouldn't work. The intended checks on judicial overreach are the legislative branch repealing laws and impeaching judges, and the executive branch issuing pardons. I would call jury nullification a form of civil disobedience. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not really operating inside the judicial framework. There's a reason the Supreme Court has consistently held that the defense does not have the right to inform the jury of their right to nullify.
- PantaloonFlames 10y ago> It's really an unintended side effect of the jury system, since jurors have to be immune from any punishment or the system wouldn't work. or in other words, an intended side-effect.
- CompelTechnic 10y agoI think I remember reading somewhere that if you demonstrate knowledge about jury nullification during the screening process when you are called for jury duty, you will be screened out as a juror. Which is frickin' ridiculous!
- nnf 10y agoThe Law You Won't Be Told https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
- douche 10y agoIt's a great trick to get out of jury duty, though.
- crispyambulance 10y agoYou can be screened out for literally ANYTHING during voire dire. It really is up to the lawyers and their prejudices and based entirely on your superficial appearance. But if you just don't want to serve, don't waste everyone's time-- just say you can't be objective, or better, give a hardship excuse before the court date.