4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that I'd have stopped with just probation, yes. Having the feds raid your house, confiscate all your gear, and put you through the hell of their

by sedatk 4y ago

I'm pretty sure that I'd have stopped with just probation, yes. Having the feds raid your house, confiscate all your gear, and put you through the hell of their investigations for a year was enough of a wake up call for me. The gap between a sufficient punishment and what he actually got is the harshest reality in all this. It's very similar to what people have gone through for small marijuana related offenses.

linuxftw 4y ago
That's why it's always important the jury be educated on their rights to decide verdicts however they see fit.
- gameman144 4y ago
  I get the appeal, but this is a super dangerous precedent. If we ignore the law and allow juries to convict or acquit based on their personal preferences, what safety do you have when the public hates you but you've broken no law?
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    > what safety do you have when the public hates you but you've broken no law? How is that different from today?
    - gameman144 4y ago
      In terms of capabilities, not at all! Juries can totally do this even today. This is kinda what I was trying to point out: the precedent that juries should evaluate guilt before the law (instead of their own standards) is the main reason juries work as an institution. Just as we can see the huge issues with other institutions failing (e.g. election certification breakdowns, bias in news, fraud in peer review), there is a risk that bypassing jury instructions can ruin that precedent on which the legal institution is built.
      - linuxftw 4y ago
        I'm not interested in maintaining societal institutions that are objectively failures. But if you're worried about precedent, there's centuries of precedent that juries can not convict for any reason, or no reason whatsoever.
  - Hitton 4y ago
    The jury is already allowed to do that.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Juries do not have the “right” to ignore the law. Juries are required to follow the law as set forth in the judge’s jury instructions. Their job is just to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts. As a legal matter, nobody gives a shit what twelve random people think about the law enacted by the democratically elected legislature. “Jury nullification” therefore isn’t a “right” it’s a loophole. It arises from the fact that there is nothing a court can do to enforce a jury’s obligation to follow the law in a criminal trial. That doesn’t mean the obligation to follow the law doesn’t exist.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    When you consider the fact that police are lying sacks of garbage, you don't need to nullify anything. You just find the state's witnesses non-credible. I think most will admit, they have a bias to believe agents of the state. This preconceived bias should be treated no different than a preconceived bias to the contrary.
  - jurynulifcation 4y ago
    Jury Nullification, aka The Citizen's Veto, is a necessary consequence of the rights enjoyed by the citizens. It might not be a right, but it is a valid form of lawfare. It is a tool we should use to undermine bad laws. That bad laws exist is, in my opinion, undeniable. I mostly have in mind, currently, the drug laws that have imprisoned tons of recreational users for the high crime of smoking a doob. The mere choice to partake is not unethical and should not be illegal. We should not expect juries to uphold these laws. We should make the jobs of prosecutors absolute hell if they want to ruin someone's life for doing something that is not unethical. Jury Nullification, aka The Citizen's Veto, is how we do that.
cortesoft 4y ago
This is why I never understand people who get mad at ‘lenient’ sentences for crimes. There are no crimes I would commit where, say, 1 year in prison wouldn’t be a deterrent but 5 years would be. If the point of prison is to deter crime, then adding longer sentences isn’t going to change anything.
- fullmoon 4y ago
  Consider that the secondary point is to separate society from perpetrator.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- annoyingnoob 4y ago
  You're right. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > There are no crimes I would commit where, say, 1 year in prison wouldn’t be a deterrent but 5 years would be. Part of the way punishments are set up are to deter vigilante justice. If someone murdered someone I love and I knew they'd only get 1 year for it, I'd be tempted to return the favor and take the year myself.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  For some people, a 5 year sentence means society is free from their crimes for 5 years.
- jandrese 4y ago
  It is interesting to see the raw visceral reaction to the DC council attempting to reduce prison sentences for crimes committed in the city. Congress even got involved to make sure it didn't happen, which has not happened in decades. Apparently a 14 year sentence for carjacking is not enough deterrent, it must be 20 years according to Congress, the President, and even the mayor of DC.

by sedatk 4y ago

linuxftw 4y ago

That's why it's always important the jury be educated on their rights to decide verdicts however they see fit.

gameman144 4y ago
I get the appeal, but this is a super dangerous precedent. If we ignore the law and allow juries to convict or acquit based on their personal preferences, what safety do you have when the public hates you but you've broken no law?
- linuxftw 4y ago
  > what safety do you have when the public hates you but you've broken no law? How is that different from today?
  - gameman144 4y ago
    In terms of capabilities, not at all! Juries can totally do this even today. This is kinda what I was trying to point out: the precedent that juries should evaluate guilt before the law (instead of their own standards) is the main reason juries work as an institution. Just as we can see the huge issues with other institutions failing (e.g. election certification breakdowns, bias in news, fraud in peer review), there is a risk that bypassing jury instructions can ruin that precedent on which the legal institution is built.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      I'm not interested in maintaining societal institutions that are objectively failures. But if you're worried about precedent, there's centuries of precedent that juries can not convict for any reason, or no reason whatsoever.
- Hitton 4y ago
  The jury is already allowed to do that.
rayiner 4y ago
Juries do not have the “right” to ignore the law. Juries are required to follow the law as set forth in the judge’s jury instructions. Their job is just to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts. As a legal matter, nobody gives a shit what twelve random people think about the law enacted by the democratically elected legislature. “Jury nullification” therefore isn’t a “right” it’s a loophole. It arises from the fact that there is nothing a court can do to enforce a jury’s obligation to follow the law in a criminal trial. That doesn’t mean the obligation to follow the law doesn’t exist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- linuxftw 4y ago
  When you consider the fact that police are lying sacks of garbage, you don't need to nullify anything. You just find the state's witnesses non-credible. I think most will admit, they have a bias to believe agents of the state. This preconceived bias should be treated no different than a preconceived bias to the contrary.
- jurynulifcation 4y ago
  Jury Nullification, aka The Citizen's Veto, is a necessary consequence of the rights enjoyed by the citizens. It might not be a right, but it is a valid form of lawfare. It is a tool we should use to undermine bad laws. That bad laws exist is, in my opinion, undeniable. I mostly have in mind, currently, the drug laws that have imprisoned tons of recreational users for the high crime of smoking a doob. The mere choice to partake is not unethical and should not be illegal. We should not expect juries to uphold these laws. We should make the jobs of prosecutors absolute hell if they want to ruin someone's life for doing something that is not unethical. Jury Nullification, aka The Citizen's Veto, is how we do that.

cortesoft 4y ago

This is why I never understand people who get mad at ‘lenient’ sentences for crimes. There are no crimes I would commit where, say, 1 year in prison wouldn’t be a deterrent but 5 years would be. If the point of prison is to deter crime, then adding longer sentences isn’t going to change anything.

fullmoon 4y ago
Consider that the secondary point is to separate society from perpetrator.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
annoyingnoob 4y ago
You're right. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
nordsieck 4y ago
> There are no crimes I would commit where, say, 1 year in prison wouldn’t be a deterrent but 5 years would be. Part of the way punishments are set up are to deter vigilante justice. If someone murdered someone I love and I knew they'd only get 1 year for it, I'd be tempted to return the favor and take the year myself.
tinus_hn 4y ago
For some people, a 5 year sentence means society is free from their crimes for 5 years.
jandrese 4y ago
It is interesting to see the raw visceral reaction to the DC council attempting to reduce prison sentences for crimes committed in the city. Congress even got involved to make sure it didn't happen, which has not happened in decades. Apparently a 14 year sentence for carjacking is not enough deterrent, it must be 20 years according to Congress, the President, and even the mayor of DC.