4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIn 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 agoI'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 agoThe jury is already allowed to do that.