4 ms·

If everyone requested jury trials the "chaos" won't be some brilliant revolution, the chaos would be everyone wasting their time on the vast majority of cases t

If everyone requested jury trials the "chaos" won't be some brilliant revolution, the chaos would be everyone wasting their time on the vast majority of cases that are open-and-shut. The other thing is that jury nullification isn't a "thing". It's not in the law or in the Constitution. The reason that juries can vote their conscience and nullify is a side effect of the sanctity of a jury trial. Juries can also vote based on the latest baseball game results, if they wanted. And judges absolutely have the right to instruct juries not do do this. I also think you'll find in practice people tend to support the system. Not everyone lives in your ideological pocket of reality, nor is it necessarily right to imagine they will once they are subjected to "widespread outreach and education". Everyone's got their own pet imaginary revolution and I think part of the reason people live in their own little mainstream-ish bubbles of reality isn't foolishness--it's a defense mechanism against every ideologue demanding their attention.

jberryman 15y ago
> nor is it necessarily right to imagine they will once they are subjected to "widespread outreach and education". This. Proponents of jury nullification seem to think that a juror needs to have revealed from on high the idea that a jury can decide to flout the law and issue whatever verdict it wants. The reason why juries don't do this isn't because their minds can't conceive of this fact, but because the majority of people understand the importance of rule of law, and that they have a responsibility that extends beyond the scope of the case at hand.
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  > the majority of people understand the importance of rule of law But it is precisely because of the importance of the rule of law that the enforcement of unjust laws, or the enforcement of a law that may be broadly just but fails to be so in a particular circumstance, must be resisted. I don't know that the majority of people have really stopped to reflect on that.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  I don't understand why this is downvoted. Is there anything controversial about the above?
JumpCrisscross 15y ago
>chaos would be everyone wasting their time I think this article's gist is that the American judiciary is leveraged and thus vulnerable to disruption. The solution advocated, loosening laws to decrease case volume, is probably better than the alternative of directing more funding to the courts and prison system. This systemic leverage pushes the judiciary to do unsavoury things, such as courts increasing penalties for those who choose trial by jury and over-zealous AGs putting elections above fairness. It may be hyperbole to call shining light on potential civil liberty abuses petty. >people tend to support the system As of 2011 the US judiciary stood at 63% approval [1] - this is a good, especially when compared to Congressional approval, but the lowest since 1973. People also tend to pay less attention to the judicial than executive and legislative branches. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149906/supreme-court-approval-rating-dips.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149906/supreme-court-approval-rat...
- neilk 15y ago
  What do you mean by "leveraged" here? I understand it as a Wall Street euphemism for having debt.
  - gbhn 15y ago
    I think he means it the same way: "If everyone wants what you owe them at once, you're hosed." This goes for people buying stocks on margin as well as for the justice system, which in theory owes each defendant a jury trial, but in reality only has enough bandwidth for 10% of them.
- harshreality 15y ago
  Applying the concept of leverage to the legal system is intriguing. Leverage compels the innocent to plead guilty, and the thought exercise of "crashing the system" will not work because the stakes are too high. There's usually evidence such that a refusal to plead guilty will not affect the outcome very much. Applied to purely innocent suspects, there is no guarantee that refusing to plead will result in a not guilty verdict. The same sort of problem is present in the investment markets. The fact that something might be over-leveraged as the fundamentals deteriorate does not guarantee profits if you try to short. To quote Keynes, (possibly the one thing he wrote that I whole-heartedly agree with) "Markets can remain irrational far longer than you or I can remain solvent." It's quite possible that overworked juries and judges would wrongly convict more people by rushing to judgment if they had 10 times the caseload. Crashing the over-leveraged legal system by flooding it with not guilty pleas may not cause the system to blink; instead, it might cause the courts to degenerate into a Kafkaesque nightmare.
Retric 15y ago
Jury nullification is not a side effect, it's the whole point of having a jury trial.

jberryman 15y ago

> nor is it necessarily right to imagine they will once they are subjected to "widespread outreach and education". This. Proponents of jury nullification seem to think that a juror needs to have revealed from on high the idea that a jury can decide to flout the law and issue whatever verdict it wants. The reason why juries don't do this isn't because their minds can't conceive of this fact, but because the majority of people understand the importance of rule of law, and that they have a responsibility that extends beyond the scope of the case at hand.

ScottBurson 15y ago
> the majority of people understand the importance of rule of law But it is precisely because of the importance of the rule of law that the enforcement of unjust laws, or the enforcement of a law that may be broadly just but fails to be so in a particular circumstance, must be resisted. I don't know that the majority of people have really stopped to reflect on that.
cynicalkane 15y ago
I don't understand why this is downvoted. Is there anything controversial about the above?

JumpCrisscross 15y ago

>chaos would be everyone wasting their time I think this article's gist is that the American judiciary is leveraged and thus vulnerable to disruption. The solution advocated, loosening laws to decrease case volume, is probably better than the alternative of directing more funding to the courts and prison system. This systemic leverage pushes the judiciary to do unsavoury things, such as courts increasing penalties for those who choose trial by jury and over-zealous AGs putting elections above fairness. It may be hyperbole to call shining light on potential civil liberty abuses petty. >people tend to support the system As of 2011 the US judiciary stood at 63% approval [1] - this is a good, especially when compared to Congressional approval, but the lowest since 1973. People also tend to pay less attention to the judicial than executive and legislative branches. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149906/supreme-court-approval-rating-dips.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149906/supreme-court-approval-rat...

neilk 15y ago
What do you mean by "leveraged" here? I understand it as a Wall Street euphemism for having debt.
- gbhn 15y ago
  I think he means it the same way: "If everyone wants what you owe them at once, you're hosed." This goes for people buying stocks on margin as well as for the justice system, which in theory owes each defendant a jury trial, but in reality only has enough bandwidth for 10% of them.
harshreality 15y ago
Applying the concept of leverage to the legal system is intriguing. Leverage compels the innocent to plead guilty, and the thought exercise of "crashing the system" will not work because the stakes are too high. There's usually evidence such that a refusal to plead guilty will not affect the outcome very much. Applied to purely innocent suspects, there is no guarantee that refusing to plead will result in a not guilty verdict. The same sort of problem is present in the investment markets. The fact that something might be over-leveraged as the fundamentals deteriorate does not guarantee profits if you try to short. To quote Keynes, (possibly the one thing he wrote that I whole-heartedly agree with) "Markets can remain irrational far longer than you or I can remain solvent." It's quite possible that overworked juries and judges would wrongly convict more people by rushing to judgment if they had 10 times the caseload. Crashing the over-leveraged legal system by flooding it with not guilty pleas may not cause the system to blink; instead, it might cause the courts to degenerate into a Kafkaesque nightmare.

Retric 15y ago

Jury nullification is not a side effect, it's the whole point of having a jury trial.