3 ms·

Lawyers I know are very anti jury nullification and they claim it's for well rationed reasons (that I don't recall) and not just group think in that it makes th

by 93po 4y ago

Lawyers I know are very anti jury nullification and they claim it's for well rationed reasons (that I don't recall) and not just group think in that it makes the lives of lawyers more difficult. I tend to want to believe them, but at the same time find our justice and punishment system horrific and sort of don't care if JN isn't ~theoretically~ the best thing to do in our legal system

javajosh 4y ago
JN is an escape hatch, similar to those built into programming tools. You really cannot and should not take away the ability of people to step back from a situation and realize the the law, when applied, leads to a perverse outcome that is truly abhorrent. The jury is how you factor in a "gut check" into your system. To be sure, this can fail. You get a bunch of jurors who are ignorant or evil in a coherent way, who decide to ignore the law and effectively lynch a man because he's black or back up the school administrator who wants to teach creationism or Jewish space lasers or whatever. Personally, I think that's an acceptable risk, in part because if you take the application of the law away from sentimental flawed rational animals you have to give it to someone else - someone (or something) with power and sitting in the seat of authority. In a sense one way to characterize democracy is as a constant struggle between jury (electorate) and judge (political leader). The way the jury system is supposed to work, the fact it was written into the Constitution, is indeed very important and I'm glad for this sub-thread is talking about it.
- ddingus 4y ago
  I agree. The discussion has merit. I hate to say it, but there are times when something is illegal, but the scenario challenges that in a super compelling way. JN both brings that to light and gives a jury that opportunity to support an actor who has a valid basis for their actions. I feel similar dynamics surround mandatory sentencing.

by 93po 4y ago

javajosh 4y ago

JN is an escape hatch, similar to those built into programming tools. You really cannot and should not take away the ability of people to step back from a situation and realize the the law, when applied, leads to a perverse outcome that is truly abhorrent. The jury is how you factor in a "gut check" into your system. To be sure, this can fail. You get a bunch of jurors who are ignorant or evil in a coherent way, who decide to ignore the law and effectively lynch a man because he's black or back up the school administrator who wants to teach creationism or Jewish space lasers or whatever. Personally, I think that's an acceptable risk, in part because if you take the application of the law away from sentimental flawed rational animals you have to give it to someone else - someone (or something) with power and sitting in the seat of authority. In a sense one way to characterize democracy is as a constant struggle between jury (electorate) and judge (political leader). The way the jury system is supposed to work, the fact it was written into the Constitution, is indeed very important and I'm glad for this sub-thread is talking about it.

ddingus 4y ago
I agree. The discussion has merit. I hate to say it, but there are times when something is illegal, but the scenario challenges that in a super compelling way. JN both brings that to light and gives a jury that opportunity to support an actor who has a valid basis for their actions. I feel similar dynamics surround mandatory sentencing.