3 ms·
Based on how today's courts operate, juries aren't offered the opportunity to interpret law. Lawyers will present a specific interpretation of laws they deem re
by _heimdall 3y ago
Based on how today's courts operate, juries aren't offered the opportunity to interpret law. Lawyers will present a specific interpretation of laws they deem relevant to the case, they will provide facts and evidence of the charge, and ask juries to decide based solely on that.
Ultimately it is left to judges to interpret law. Meaning that if laws are passed with ambiguous definitions unelected judges get to decide how they think the blanks should be filled in. Our elected officials can then, if they choose, pass laws with the intent of leaving them ambiguous to allow unelected judges to effectively write laws completely unbeholden to the very voters that they are meant to serve.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoFor this law juries don't need to interpret the law, merely deciding whether the clauses of the law have been met or not is enough. Saying that they don't think the plaintiff or prosecution met the burden of proof is fine. In the US jury nullification is also a right. If the jury thinks that the law is too draconian for the facts of the case they can vote to acquit.