4 ms·
I'm aware of jury nullification (thank you cgp gray [1]) but afaik I don't think jury nullification can be equated to "doing nothing rather than doing the insan
by NalNezumi 2y ago
I'm aware of jury nullification (thank you cgp gray [1]) but afaik I don't think jury nullification can be equated to "doing nothing rather than doing the insane".
Jury nullification have a lot of uncomfortable implications to the legal system and that's one of the reasons it's not shared to potential juries, but implicit asked. The systematic implication can be pararelled to politician's in the long run deciding nonvoters concern can be ignored.
Jury nullification comparisons comes with a bit of a blind faith in the other juries (because in this situation you're not replaced, the resting juries just have more votes) are sane.
That said I know you're not advocating for nonvoting as a viable long term strategy but just for this one occasion. I'm not faulting that and can understand it. Advocating for it to others is a bit more problematic and the point I'm contending on in a public forum, in case many agrees to that stance.
[1] https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=m4YQbveBf7yC-cFE https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=m4YQbveBf7yC-cFE
- _heimdall 2y agoMy comparison was meant mainly in the light of going against the system that is in place because one has a problem with the system itself. On a jury the expectstion is that you will vote based solely on the logic of the facts and legal interpretations presented. Jury nullification is a choice to go against this, going outside what the system wants you to believe is your duty because you disagree with that premise. Here, not voting is going against this unwritten rule that we must pick between the two options and that is our civic duty to vote for one or the other no matter what. Sitting out for a specific election is ignoring what the system wants us to do when we disagree with the assumption that we must choose between the two options given.