5 ms·
Which will result in a mistrial, then a new trial, then a new jury who doesn't have a lying jerk amongst them. You will have accomplished nothing but being a l
by hondo77 11y ago
Which will result in a mistrial, then a new trial, then a new jury who doesn't have a lying jerk amongst them. You will have accomplished nothing but being a lying jerk. Before being put on a jury, you would have sworn an oath to decide the case based on the evidence provided during trial. If you decide that you don't want to do that and lie to get on the jury anyway, you've wasted everybody's time because you felt like being a jerk. Way to go, hero.
- Crito 11y agoSurely it only results in a mistrial if you don't get the rest of the jury to go along with you? Or are there cases where the whole jury comes back with "not guilty", and a mistrial is declared because they didn't say "guilty"? > "If you decide that you don't want to do that and lie to get on the jury anyway, you've wasted everybody's time because you felt like being a jerk. Way to go, hero." Arguably wasting everybody's time is a form of civil protest. If every drug charge went through several mistrials before they managed to obtain a conviction, then DA's might be more hesitant to bring less egregious cases to trial. Do you think that the act of nullification in general makes you a jerk? Or only when used in certain circumstances? Were Northerners who nullified for escaped slaves being jerks?
- FireBeyond 11y agoYour civil protest could cost other people thousands of dollars in legal and other costs, result in other people spending more time incarcerated, and the like, without their consent. The consequence for you is a few days spent feeling like a hero. The consequences for others can be much greater.
- Crito 11y agoOkay, since you've only responded with a pathetic ethical objection to a very narrow part of my post, I take it that you concede that his post was full of absolute horseshit.
- spacemanmatt 11y agoMaybe the rights of the accused are more important than efficiency of punishing the innocent.
- venomsnake 11y agoFirst - breaking an oath is no big deal. Second - you don't have to lie. If you put for yourself the beyond reasonable doubt bar in nonviolent drug crime to be 1/10^14 who is there to disprove you. With 7000000000 people on earth and creative misinterpretation of the Bayesian statistics you could be totally right for yourself.
- bediger4000 11y agobreaking an oath is no big deal. Agreed. It sounds like a lot of prosecutors do so, and the FBI labs people certainly did.