4 ms·

Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic. There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nul

Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic. There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.

gameman144 3y ago
I hear this view about jury nullification quite a bit, saying it's fair to ignore the law and acquit if the law is unfair. Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law and convict if someone committed some evil act but technically didn't break any law?
- chongli 3y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being charged with a crime they clearly did not commit? Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    "Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry distinction.
    - chongli 3y ago
      How so? Matters of fact: What happened on the night of March 17th? Matters of law: What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
  - vkou 3y ago
    > If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
    - chongli 3y ago
      Only on acquittal. A judge can set aside a conviction if they believe the jury erred. Cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of acquittal may even convince the judge to instruct the jury to acquit. If the jury ignores this and convicts anyway then the judge may set aside the verdict.
      - vkou 3y ago
        Then why even have a jury, if in such a case, the judge can appoint himself as a finder of fact, and by himself determine if someone is guilty or innocent?
        chongli 3y ago
        Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that. The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising. If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.
- hobs 3y ago
  Pretty simply, no. There's no way to jail someone under the law without some crime or act that we have laws for (like involuntary committal.)
- michaelt 3y ago
  Many people think the justice system should systematically err towards mercy. Highway cops might have discretion to let people off with a warning for minor violations, but the same discretion isn't supposed to let them punish people who are innocent. State governors have the power to grant pardons, but don't have the inverse power. And so on.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  The Constitution trumps other law.
- ghastmaster 3y ago
  > Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law... Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By ignoring it, that becomes "the law". "The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age, we learn more about what is acceptable in society based on all these things. Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of society and government that forms "the law".
Zetice 3y ago
So it’s legitimate when a white jury allows white people to get away with killing black folks?

gameman144 3y ago

I hear this view about jury nullification quite a bit, saying it's fair to ignore the law and acquit if the law is unfair. Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law and convict if someone committed some evil act but technically didn't break any law?

chongli 3y ago
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being charged with a crime they clearly did not commit? Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  "Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry distinction.
  - chongli 3y ago
    How so? Matters of fact: What happened on the night of March 17th? Matters of law: What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
- vkou 3y ago
  > If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
  - chongli 3y ago
    Only on acquittal. A judge can set aside a conviction if they believe the jury erred. Cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of acquittal may even convince the judge to instruct the jury to acquit. If the jury ignores this and convicts anyway then the judge may set aside the verdict.
    - vkou 3y ago
      Then why even have a jury, if in such a case, the judge can appoint himself as a finder of fact, and by himself determine if someone is guilty or innocent?
      - chongli 3y ago
        Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that. The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising. If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.
hobs 3y ago
Pretty simply, no. There's no way to jail someone under the law without some crime or act that we have laws for (like involuntary committal.)
michaelt 3y ago
Many people think the justice system should systematically err towards mercy. Highway cops might have discretion to let people off with a warning for minor violations, but the same discretion isn't supposed to let them punish people who are innocent. State governors have the power to grant pardons, but don't have the inverse power. And so on.
hgsgm 3y ago
The Constitution trumps other law.
ghastmaster 3y ago
> Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law... Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By ignoring it, that becomes "the law". "The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age, we learn more about what is acceptable in society based on all these things. Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of society and government that forms "the law".

Zetice 3y ago

So it’s legitimate when a white jury allows white people to get away with killing black folks?