6 ms·
In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it'
by 0x445442 6y ago
In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.
- rjbwork 6y agoAnd they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.
- Uberphallus 6y agoYou lie, if they accuse you of perjury then you say "I googled it after I was asked".
- rjbwork 6y agoBut that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"
- Uberphallus 6y agoKeyword: would (not will). No perjury. And if they use "will", it's perfectly normal to wonder why one would ask such a strange question. It would totally read as "we're gonna find a case to test you on that teehee".
- AnHonestComment 6y agoUh, people playing games with the court by pretending they don’t understand a basic question scares me. I hope you’re never on a jury: you don’t seem like you take it seriously and you should when it impacts other people’s lives. “Would” is a form of “will”, and haggling tense to “avoid” perjury is deeply dishonest — and probably still perjury. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/would https://www.dictionary.com/browse/would
- mindslight 6y agoI agree on the general indirection they use. However my answer to the specific question you posed is "no, I'd have no problem". But if it were eg a drug charge, then I wouldn't consider the relevant criminal law to be constitutional (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for starters), and thus the defendant is innocent because there is no crime to have been committed. My judgment wouldn't be to save one sympathetic person from being convicted of what is otherwise a legitimate crime, but rather over the validity of the law itself. In general they will ask you a bunch of questions to trip up anyone who might be too clever, but they can't ask about jury nullification directly (lest they give anyone else ideas). If you answer in the expected common sense way, and don't boast about your reasoning, it's going to be very hard for them to claim perjury.
- jimmydorry 6y agoThen what, for every other jury duty?
- Uberphallus 6y ago> Majority verdicts are not allowed in criminal cases in the United States, and so a hung jury results in a mistrial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
- chongli 6y agoBut if you don’t know what it is then are you not made aware of it merely by their asking? How exactly do they weed people out without making them aware of it?
- rjbwork 6y agoSee my response to Uberphallus above.
- 0x445442 6y agoRight, I've actually used this before when I wanted to get out of Jury Duty.
- dec0dedab0de 6y agoyeah, but when you say guilty or not guilty you don't have to explain why.
- aleclarsoniv 6y agoWhat's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.
- AnHonestComment 6y agoIs this a sincere question? It’s a mistrial to have a juror voting based on ideology rather than the facts of the trial. A juror who wouldn’t convict under any conditions is a bad juror and subverts defendant protections like requiring high juror consensus by making such measure impractical.
- vidarh 6y agoI'm of two minds of this. On one hand I do agree with you that it has the potential to be an important safety valve (not least because I think the US prison system is immoral and unjust...). On the other hand, historically it has a history of severe abuse, e.g. to let people go free for lynchings and the like.
- aleclarsoniv 6y agoThe right to bear arms has a history of severe abuse as well, but I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A jury that acquits a white murderer, then convicts a black murderer of the same caliber, is the textbook definition of an impartial jury (which is unconstitutional).
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1]. And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning. Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/impartial-jury https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge
- GavinMcG 6y agoYou're not within your rights as a juror to nullify. You can do so as a matter of practice. Jury nullification looks great for laws you disagree with. It's not so great when it's used to let people off the hook for lynchings.¹ ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till