5 ms·

The jury shouldn't be deciding legal questions - that's for the judge. A jury is supposed to come to their verdict on a consideration of "matters of fact" (a te

by ranko 8y ago

The jury shouldn't be deciding legal questions - that's for the judge. A jury is supposed to come to their verdict on a consideration of "matters of fact" (a term of art in the law). For example, the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law, and not up for debate by the jury. The jury's role is to decide whether or not the accused committed that particular crime; eg, does the evidence support ("beyond reasonable doubt") the conclusion that they throw the punch that the prosecution allege caused the injury to the accuser?

leetcrew 8y ago
worth pointing out because i don't know if this is also the case in other countries: if the jurors think the law is dumb, they can return a verdict of not guilty even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
- KallDrexx 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure there is leeway in the appeals process for handling this case if it's absolutely obvious the Jury didn't follow the law.
  - IanPBann 8y ago
    You can appeal against a conviction, but unless new evidence comes to light, a non-guilty verdict closes the case. At least that's my understanding.
    - leephillips 8y ago
      The non-guilty verdict is final, even in the face of new evidence: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Sometimes the government gets around this by inventing a new “offence” for the same crime, often at a different political level; for example, you may be acquitted of murder at the state level, but be charged with a “hate crime” at the federal level for the same act.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    this isn't the jury "not following the law". it's called "jury nullification" and it has been a feature of common law for hundreds of years.
candiodari 8y ago
NOT true AT ALL. This is how it's presented to everyone but this is NOT true. A jury decides on the question if it is just/fair for this person to be convicted of that crime given the crime, the evidence, the state, and the expected punishment, or any other factor they care about. NOT just if they're guilty. A jury is perfectly free to declare someone not guilty even if they are convinced they are guilty. Seriously, give this as an answer as a first year law student and you fail. No question. Of course, it's how prosecutors present it to the jury (you might ask yourself the question: given that they misrepresent this, how badly did they misrepresent the crime in the first place ?) And, frankly, if you knew how the police and penal system worked internally, you would in nearly every last case vote not to convict. It does not fix the crime, it just creates one more victim, and the system is totally inhumane. Even if someone is a criminal and have stolen, or even raped they do not deserve to be subjected to that. Furthermore, prosecutors lie in court to get people convicted, so how trustworthy is their case, really ? Listen to a few of the dirty tricks police pull to convince juries: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m48s https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m48s Still so ready to convict ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification NO ! Is the only correct answer when on a jury. Ever.
- gbear605 8y ago
  Come on, there are at least some cases where people deserve to be put in jail. Clear evidence of rape is definitely one of those. Do you actually want to release serial killers caught in the act, just because the penal system is too inhumane for them?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    I fully put out that yes, there is probably some level of crime that would justify it. However, for a US state I'd say that there are maybe 1 or 2 individuals per year at most. So in any case you're ever going to see in your life: no they don't deserve it. Even for most violent crimes, year-long torture (which is what generously describes the penal system) is not a reasonable outcome. So in a jury you should always always always vote no.
  - deleted 8y ago
stordoff 8y ago
> the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law This isn't strictly true - s.18 (GBH) requires intent, which is a question for the jury. Furthermore, what constitutes "really serious" injury is a question for the jury. You can break in down into questions of fact (e.g. Did the defendant have intent? Did the defendant cause these injuries? Are these injuries "really serious"?), but it's not as clear cut as did the defendant throw the punch (they must judge if they consider the injuries to be "really serious", which isn't quite a question of fact). In addition, juries are entitled to make a decision based on their conscience, per Bushel's case.

by ranko 8y ago

leetcrew 8y ago

worth pointing out because i don't know if this is also the case in other countries: if the jurors think the law is dumb, they can return a verdict of not guilty even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

KallDrexx 8y ago
I'm pretty sure there is leeway in the appeals process for handling this case if it's absolutely obvious the Jury didn't follow the law.
- IanPBann 8y ago
  You can appeal against a conviction, but unless new evidence comes to light, a non-guilty verdict closes the case. At least that's my understanding.
  - leephillips 8y ago
    The non-guilty verdict is final, even in the face of new evidence: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Sometimes the government gets around this by inventing a new “offence” for the same crime, often at a different political level; for example, you may be acquitted of murder at the state level, but be charged with a “hate crime” at the federal level for the same act.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  this isn't the jury "not following the law". it's called "jury nullification" and it has been a feature of common law for hundreds of years.

candiodari 8y ago

NOT true AT ALL. This is how it's presented to everyone but this is NOT true. A jury decides on the question if it is just/fair for this person to be convicted of that crime given the crime, the evidence, the state, and the expected punishment, or any other factor they care about. NOT just if they're guilty. A jury is perfectly free to declare someone not guilty even if they are convinced they are guilty. Seriously, give this as an answer as a first year law student and you fail. No question. Of course, it's how prosecutors present it to the jury (you might ask yourself the question: given that they misrepresent this, how badly did they misrepresent the crime in the first place ?) And, frankly, if you knew how the police and penal system worked internally, you would in nearly every last case vote not to convict. It does not fix the crime, it just creates one more victim, and the system is totally inhumane. Even if someone is a criminal and have stolen, or even raped they do not deserve to be subjected to that. Furthermore, prosecutors lie in court to get people convicted, so how trustworthy is their case, really ? Listen to a few of the dirty tricks police pull to convince juries: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m48s https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m48s Still so ready to convict ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification NO ! Is the only correct answer when on a jury. Ever.

gbear605 8y ago
Come on, there are at least some cases where people deserve to be put in jail. Clear evidence of rape is definitely one of those. Do you actually want to release serial killers caught in the act, just because the penal system is too inhumane for them?
- candiodari 8y ago
  I fully put out that yes, there is probably some level of crime that would justify it. However, for a US state I'd say that there are maybe 1 or 2 individuals per year at most. So in any case you're ever going to see in your life: no they don't deserve it. Even for most violent crimes, year-long torture (which is what generously describes the penal system) is not a reasonable outcome. So in a jury you should always always always vote no.
- deleted 8y ago

stordoff 8y ago

> the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law This isn't strictly true - s.18 (GBH) requires intent, which is a question for the jury. Furthermore, what constitutes "really serious" injury is a question for the jury. You can break in down into questions of fact (e.g. Did the defendant have intent? Did the defendant cause these injuries? Are these injuries "really serious"?), but it's not as clear cut as did the defendant throw the punch (they must judge if they consider the injuries to be "really serious", which isn't quite a question of fact). In addition, juries are entitled to make a decision based on their conscience, per Bushel's case.