4 ms·
> This is a power granted to citizens Technically, no. Jury nullification is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that juries are not required to explain the
by mcherm 15y ago
> This is a power granted to citizens
Technically, no. Jury nullification is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that juries are not required to explain their reasoning. But it can only happen when a jury ignores a judge's instructions (which will say to base the decision on the existing law).
> it should say Greed is good. [...] Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with making money, but don't try and rationalize your ethics away.
Maybe you read a different article than I did? In the article you read, the employees at LessAnnoying got together by the water cooler and talked about how they'd LOVE to eject EvilTroll, but couldn't make payroll at the end of the month without his business. In the one I read, they didn't give a hoot about EvilTroll's money, but wanted to avoid engaging in content-based censorship.
- jeremyarussell 15y agoYou should replace technically with expressly. As it is technically given to American citizens, just not expressly told to them that they have this inherent right.
- monochromatic 15y agoIt's really not a legal right that they have. They have the ability, or the power. But in order to exercise that power, they have to disregard the oath that they swear as jurors.
- jeremyarussell 15y agoRight, hence the reason they do technically have that right, but don't expressly have that right.
- monochromatic 15y agoNot really... it's not a right that they have. They have the ability to do it, but it's not a right that was ever granted to them, and they're breaking their oath when they do it. I have the ability to sneak into my neighbor's house and steal his things. It's implicitly built into the system where I live next door to him, and he's not always home. But I sure don't have the right to do that.
- jeremyarussell 15y agoI'm not sure if your argument is valid. The two seem very different from each other. One is the chance to save someone from prosecution, the other is a chance to take something from another. I almost want to call this a Straw Man argument, you are using an argument that is unrelated but you draw up similarities to make it seem that my argument is wrong. I might be wrong too though.
- matthewowen 15y agoWell, it might be that the guy you save from prosecution is the same one that just broke into their next door neighbour's house. And hey, the neighbour might have thought it was his right, and you might agree. But that isn't the point. The actual point is that rights and laws are supposed to be generated by consensus. Doing something just because you're able to isn't generating by consensus - it's happening because a sufficient number of jurors in a case decided they disagreed with something.
- monochromatic 15y agoYeah, it's kind of a bad example because it's too extreme. But I think the point still holds, and I wasn't able to come up with a better example of something I have the power, but not the right, to do.
- mcherm 14y agoIt's become a matter of semantics. All of us in the conversation understand what is meant: the jurors must disregard the Judge's instructions, but they are fully capable of doing so. Whether we call that "technically" or "expressly" is just a matter of word choice... personally, I'm happy with either term.