5 ms·

Jury Nullification

96 points by amarcheschi 2y ago

matthewmorgan 2y ago
In the UK the powers that be are desperate to get rid of juries. We shouldn't let them
dillydogg 2y ago
A quick way to be skipped over for jury duty is to bring up jury nullification during jury selection. Which I think is horrible, obviously. I was very excited to exercise my right to say presumptively possessing weed isn't worth jail time.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  Oh god, really? It's so stupid. I would not bring it up and then act my own way anyway
more_corn 2y ago
My favorite jury nullification story is of a murder case in Appalachia. Dude and his wife were walking out of a gas station. Other guy makes sexual and offensive statement about dude’s wife. Fight ensues. Dude ends up killing the guy who made the offensive comment. Jury acquitted him “it don’t seem like you’d be any kinda man if you let somethin like that pass.” We have jury trials for a reason. Sometimes the law as written needs to be interpreted by the people it serves.
n4r9 2y ago
I recall this [edit: potentially] happening a few years back when a jury in Bristol - a notoriously progressive city - gave a not guilty verdict to four people that had helped topple a statue of a long dead slave trader: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colston_Four_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colston_Four_trial The right wing of the country was obviously in uproar and demanding changes to the system or that some exception be made. Except, interestingly, for the poshest and possibly most right wing MP of all, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Iirc he said that even though he disagreed with the verdict, jury nullification is there for a good reason and the jury was perfectly within protocol to do what they did. He's a nasty piece of work but every now and then comes across as surprisingly principled.
bsnnkv 2y ago
Reading between the lines a little here with this submission, I'm assuming it's related to the case of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  Yes, but the existence of the Wikipedia page and the act of doing it itself in a jury were a pre existing condition On a serious note, yes it is. However, it is very interesting as a European learning about a mechanism that allows the jury to say we believe someone has done that, but we don't believe it should be guilty
  - ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
    Does Europe not have jury trials?
    - mcv 2y ago
      Europe isn't a single place. Some countries do, some don't. I don't think I've ever heard of a jury trial in Netherland, but France, Belgium and the UK apparently still have it.
      - tdeck 2y ago
        Scotland even has the famous "third verdict" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
        aitchnyu 2y ago
        Is this remarkable? I see "acquitted by lack of evidence" in India and think its the same.
        ender341341 2y ago
        In the US "acquitted by lack of evidence" is not a legally distinct verdict, just guilty or not guilty, even if the jury provides justification.
garciasn 2y ago
On the two juries on which I’ve served, jury nullification was indirectly addressed by the judges who, in not so many words, claimed it was not legal for us to apply it. Disingenuous and awful; there’s no wonder it exists when the judiciary thinks it can will it out of existence.
- petercooper 2y ago
  In the UK, there's a plaque at the Old Bailey court that specifically commemorates the right of juries to acquit a defendant according to the conscience of the jurors. Judges, oddly, aren't big fans of it.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  It’s not legal. It’s an intentional perversion of the course of justice by the jury. But it’s something that cannot be prosecuted without impugning the independence of the jury.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    One man's perversion is another man's justice. If the law itself is unjust then the only just course a jury can take is to find the defendant not guilty.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    It’s the entire reason for having a jury of your peers in the first place. We got tired of our countrymen being convicted of breaking another nation’s dumb laws, so we put a mechanism in place assuring that some has to be guilty in the eyes of their neighbors, not some distant government. Jury nullification is just about the most American thing I can imagine. Saying “I don’t care if he did it, it’s a dumb law and I’m not convicting him for it” is our birthright.
    - amenhotep 2y ago
      This post seems to evince a belief that America invented juries? You didn't.
mjw1007 2y ago
One of the first prosecutions under the UK computer misuse act (R v Bedworth in 1991), ended up as effectively a jury nullification. IIRC the judge explicitly told the jury that the offered defence wasn't valid as a matter of law, but they acquitted him anyway.
amarcheschi 2y ago
The page is about the law itself and how it was developed, its history (...) To read how it is applied today in the us, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Un...
banku_brougham 2y ago
Can someone explain the legal concept in plain terms? I had thought a jury cannot be compelled to decide one or other way, and that jurors can vote as the will.
- hennell 2y ago
  Juries are meant to decide based on the case before them in accordance with the laws as written. But jury discussions and motivations are sacrosanct, and you can't be punished for the "wrong" verdict. So technically you can ignore the law and vote how you like, allowing juries to effectively "nullify" a law by refusing to convict on it. But allowing a jury to ignore the law as written means they can convict or not based solely on political leaning, ethnicity, sexuality or religion etc. It's often cited as a way for society to oppose laws they disagree with, but is very much frowned upon by the legal system as it is easily exploited for very nefarious purposes and leads to a very unbalanced system rather than a consistent rule of law.
- fasa99 2y ago
  The general intent of the jury is to ask, "do you think they broke the law or not" and it's a jury of your peers, from your community, so it's seen as super fair. On one extreme the jury carefully reviews the law as written and makes a judgement focused on the law. Whether they agree or disagree with the law itself is inconsequential, they must apply it. On the other extreme (jury nullification) the jury might ignore the law and decide for themselves, then and there, what is right and what is wrong. In many jurisdictions the jury is encouraged to adhere to the law as written, in some it is "illegal" for the jury to willfully ignore the law but there is no punishment for doing so. The concept of "Jury Nullification" is meant to be a checks & balances if some law exists that is insane or unreasonable or would be morally bankrupt to apply in a particular situation, extreme cases. So the pressure to not apply jury nullification in general is because if it were used in every case, not extreme cases, literally the jury then becomes the congress, the makers of law, and of course everything becomes kind of random and unfair depending on whatever jury you got.
  - salawat 2y ago

96 points by amarcheschi 2y ago

In the UK the powers that be are desperate to get rid of juries. We shouldn't let them

A quick way to be skipped over for jury duty is to bring up jury nullification during jury selection. Which I think is horrible, obviously. I was very excited to exercise my right to say presumptively possessing weed isn't worth jail time.

amarcheschi 2y ago
Oh god, really? It's so stupid. I would not bring it up and then act my own way anyway

more_corn 2y ago

My favorite jury nullification story is of a murder case in Appalachia. Dude and his wife were walking out of a gas station. Other guy makes sexual and offensive statement about dude’s wife. Fight ensues. Dude ends up killing the guy who made the offensive comment. Jury acquitted him “it don’t seem like you’d be any kinda man if you let somethin like that pass.” We have jury trials for a reason. Sometimes the law as written needs to be interpreted by the people it serves.

n4r9 2y ago

I recall this [edit: potentially] happening a few years back when a jury in Bristol - a notoriously progressive city - gave a not guilty verdict to four people that had helped topple a statue of a long dead slave trader: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colston_Four_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colston_Four_trial The right wing of the country was obviously in uproar and demanding changes to the system or that some exception be made. Except, interestingly, for the poshest and possibly most right wing MP of all, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Iirc he said that even though he disagreed with the verdict, jury nullification is there for a good reason and the jury was perfectly within protocol to do what they did. He's a nasty piece of work but every now and then comes across as surprisingly principled.

bsnnkv 2y ago

Reading between the lines a little here with this submission, I'm assuming it's related to the case of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.

amarcheschi 2y ago
Yes, but the existence of the Wikipedia page and the act of doing it itself in a jury were a pre existing condition On a serious note, yes it is. However, it is very interesting as a European learning about a mechanism that allows the jury to say we believe someone has done that, but we don't believe it should be guilty
- ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
  Does Europe not have jury trials?
  - mcv 2y ago
    Europe isn't a single place. Some countries do, some don't. I don't think I've ever heard of a jury trial in Netherland, but France, Belgium and the UK apparently still have it.
    - tdeck 2y ago
      Scotland even has the famous "third verdict" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
      - aitchnyu 2y ago
        Is this remarkable? I see "acquitted by lack of evidence" in India and think its the same.
        ender341341 2y ago
        In the US "acquitted by lack of evidence" is not a legally distinct verdict, just guilty or not guilty, even if the jury provides justification.

garciasn 2y ago

On the two juries on which I’ve served, jury nullification was indirectly addressed by the judges who, in not so many words, claimed it was not legal for us to apply it. Disingenuous and awful; there’s no wonder it exists when the judiciary thinks it can will it out of existence.

petercooper 2y ago
In the UK, there's a plaque at the Old Bailey court that specifically commemorates the right of juries to acquit a defendant according to the conscience of the jurors. Judges, oddly, aren't big fans of it.
dcrazy 2y ago
It’s not legal. It’s an intentional perversion of the course of justice by the jury. But it’s something that cannot be prosecuted without impugning the independence of the jury.
- harimau777 2y ago
  One man's perversion is another man's justice. If the law itself is unjust then the only just course a jury can take is to find the defendant not guilty.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  It’s the entire reason for having a jury of your peers in the first place. We got tired of our countrymen being convicted of breaking another nation’s dumb laws, so we put a mechanism in place assuring that some has to be guilty in the eyes of their neighbors, not some distant government. Jury nullification is just about the most American thing I can imagine. Saying “I don’t care if he did it, it’s a dumb law and I’m not convicting him for it” is our birthright.
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    This post seems to evince a belief that America invented juries? You didn't.

mjw1007 2y ago

One of the first prosecutions under the UK computer misuse act (R v Bedworth in 1991), ended up as effectively a jury nullification. IIRC the judge explicitly told the jury that the offered defence wasn't valid as a matter of law, but they acquitted him anyway.

amarcheschi 2y ago

The page is about the law itself and how it was developed, its history (...) To read how it is applied today in the us, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Un...

banku_brougham 2y ago

Can someone explain the legal concept in plain terms? I had thought a jury cannot be compelled to decide one or other way, and that jurors can vote as the will.

hennell 2y ago
Juries are meant to decide based on the case before them in accordance with the laws as written. But jury discussions and motivations are sacrosanct, and you can't be punished for the "wrong" verdict. So technically you can ignore the law and vote how you like, allowing juries to effectively "nullify" a law by refusing to convict on it. But allowing a jury to ignore the law as written means they can convict or not based solely on political leaning, ethnicity, sexuality or religion etc. It's often cited as a way for society to oppose laws they disagree with, but is very much frowned upon by the legal system as it is easily exploited for very nefarious purposes and leads to a very unbalanced system rather than a consistent rule of law.
fasa99 2y ago
The general intent of the jury is to ask, "do you think they broke the law or not" and it's a jury of your peers, from your community, so it's seen as super fair. On one extreme the jury carefully reviews the law as written and makes a judgement focused on the law. Whether they agree or disagree with the law itself is inconsequential, they must apply it. On the other extreme (jury nullification) the jury might ignore the law and decide for themselves, then and there, what is right and what is wrong. In many jurisdictions the jury is encouraged to adhere to the law as written, in some it is "illegal" for the jury to willfully ignore the law but there is no punishment for doing so. The concept of "Jury Nullification" is meant to be a checks & balances if some law exists that is insane or unreasonable or would be morally bankrupt to apply in a particular situation, extreme cases. So the pressure to not apply jury nullification in general is because if it were used in every case, not extreme cases, literally the jury then becomes the congress, the makers of law, and of course everything becomes kind of random and unfair depending on whatever jury you got.
- salawat 2y ago