4 ms·

I think it's important to note that breaking the law isn't necessarily unethical, therefore we should carefully consider our treatment towards "criminals". The

by smokeyj 16y ago

I think it's important to note that breaking the law isn't necessarily unethical, therefore we should carefully consider our treatment towards "criminals". The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with Georgia leading the US. It isn't pretty.

aberkowitz 16y ago
The United States government creates a hypocrisy when they do not follow laws put in place by their own institutions.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
fleitz 16y ago
The law being ethical is what lawyers would call a 'legal fiction'. This is why the first juries established jury nullification.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 16y ago
  Unfortunately, it seems recently most of the time juries are not informed of their nullification abilities (and the defense is often prohibited from mentioning it). Sadly this line of reasoning has been upheld in court.
  - dedward 16y ago
    They didn't "establish nullification" - nullification is simply the logical outcome that the jury's decision is final, and can't be questioned. The reason judges don't want this fact brought up by counsel during court is because it would render the legal system meaningless... in general I think we'd all LIKE the jury focused on the law and the evidence, not their gut feelings. This always comes up in discussions when we feel the law is unjust and the accused isn't getting a fair trial - but please consider, if counsel were allowed to bring this up in court and instruct the jury that, you know, regardless of what you have heard here, you can vote however you feel like it and, you know, nobody is allowed to give you shit over it afterwards.... that street runs both ways. You'd have people who DO deserve punishment getting off scott free.
    - fleitz 16y ago
      It wouldn't render the legal system meaningless. It would return verdicts according to your 12 peers. Jury Nullification is not about using your gut feelings its used for when the application of the law would return an unjust or immoral result. There is in my estimation, no better judge of the law than 12 of your peers.

by smokeyj 16y ago

aberkowitz 16y ago

The United States government creates a hypocrisy when they do not follow laws put in place by their own institutions.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

fleitz 16y ago

The law being ethical is what lawyers would call a 'legal fiction'. This is why the first juries established jury nullification.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 16y ago
Unfortunately, it seems recently most of the time juries are not informed of their nullification abilities (and the defense is often prohibited from mentioning it). Sadly this line of reasoning has been upheld in court.
- dedward 16y ago
  They didn't "establish nullification" - nullification is simply the logical outcome that the jury's decision is final, and can't be questioned. The reason judges don't want this fact brought up by counsel during court is because it would render the legal system meaningless... in general I think we'd all LIKE the jury focused on the law and the evidence, not their gut feelings. This always comes up in discussions when we feel the law is unjust and the accused isn't getting a fair trial - but please consider, if counsel were allowed to bring this up in court and instruct the jury that, you know, regardless of what you have heard here, you can vote however you feel like it and, you know, nobody is allowed to give you shit over it afterwards.... that street runs both ways. You'd have people who DO deserve punishment getting off scott free.
  - fleitz 16y ago
    It wouldn't render the legal system meaningless. It would return verdicts according to your 12 peers. Jury Nullification is not about using your gut feelings its used for when the application of the law would return an unjust or immoral result. There is in my estimation, no better judge of the law than 12 of your peers.