True enough, but if I vote not guilty on the charge, I remove the state’s power to select the remedy, which is what the argument is about, isn’t it? Nullifying the overwhelming power the state can bring to bear against an individual through the application of laws that we, the citizens, disagree with.
You’re not just nullifying the power of the state, you’re nullifying the power of democracy. Elections and the legislative process determine what “we, the citizens” agree or disagree with. Jury nullification is what “I, an individual” agrees or disagrees with, and that is contrary to justice.
I’m not starting the debate all over again from the beginning. I’ve noticed this systematic tag team strategy employed here and I’m done with that. If you want to get in on my argument, tell me which part of what has been put forth already do you disagree with?
Already dealt with all that.
We do NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. Yes, we democratically send them to work in the government, but once there, it is they who make our laws. ANY laws. Yes, they are somewhat bound by the prospect of being reelected, but they are not ABSOLUTELY bound. They may make laws to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, return runaway slaves, and or other law they want to. I do not understand which part of this is so complicated that people of at least average intelligence can’t understand it.
If it is true that the state can make any obnoxious law they can get enough signatures for, then it is equally true that the citizens need an escape mechanism in place to save ourselves from the times when the government crosses the line of good government.
This statement is:
(1) Untrue,
(2) Irrelevant, and
(3) Has absolutely zero legal or constitutional meaning.
We live in a democratic republic. We live in a republican democracy. Both statements are true. Either way, they have no legal significance.
To the extent that jury nullification subverts democracy, it also subverts republicanism. And it also subverts justice.
Public opinion changes - that’s why we have more than one election in the lifetime of a democracy. The government is continuously going back to the people for opinions on members of the legislative bodies, and also for opinions on whether a charge should lead to a conviction. It’s just a smaller electorate.
As a practical matter - how would you craft a law forbidding a jury from nullification, since you have no idea why they voted “not guilty”? Maybe one juror simply disbelieves all words from a policeman’s mouth (I have met people like that). That’s his right as a juror, misguided as it may be. If the empanelling didn’t cacth it, well, sucks to be the prosecutor.
One can only deduce that you don’t know what the words mean and further discussion is pointless.
One can only deduce that you have bought some bullshit political fringe line about what “republic” and “democracy” mean rather than what they mean in real life and what they mean in American law.
It would seem that you have bought into some fringe theory that if you argue some meaningless point about what is the definition of “is” is, then you won’t have to debate the meat and potatoes of the argument. To wit:
This is the idea proposed. The fact that once they get there, through whatever process, they are not bound to what we the people want. So, if we could get back on track, do you have a relevant opinion on this?
From the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
From the pledge of allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands
Democracy - Is by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules.
Republic - It is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governed according to law.
So, to be precise, ours is a democratic Republic. Democratic is an adjective that describes the noun Republic. So, republican Democracy isn’t correct.
The words actually have meaning and are not interchangeable willy nilly. It is difficult enough when we disagree on ideas, but when people don’t even know the definition of the words they are using, it becomes a real mess.
If it’s a rabbit-hole you would rather not go down, then you can easily avoid it by excising the idiotic phrase “a republic, not a democracy” from your vocabulary.
Yes. Don’t vote for people who want to intern Japanese-Americans. If someone proposes to intern Japanese-Americans, voice your objection and lobby your elected officials. Oppose them, denounce them, embarrass them. If someone goes ahead and enacts internment of Japanese-Americans, vote his or her party out of office. And then join the effort to prevent any future internment laws, and perhaps even a constitutional amendment. But don’t try to pretend that unequal application of the law is justice.
This was done by presidential order by the Hero of the land, that Great Socialist who shall not be insulted, FDR, and so not really relevant to jury nullification, but to continue:
These were American citizens held for years for the crime of being japanese and this is the side you want to be on? Out here in public, you want to be known as the guy who thinks it is ok for people to be held for years while you are what…opposing and denouncing? I’m sure they would be warmed to the very cockles of their heart because you are out there what…embarrassing them. ooooh, scary. You did see the part about years, right? YEARS. Think if it was one of your family members being held for no reason.
Well done I say, sir! Well done indeed.
Justice, to me, is putting people who hurt other people in prison and NOT putting people who don’t hurt other people in prison. It would seem that you are ok with putting people who don’t hurt anyone in prison for a few years as long as someone is denouncing the system.
While the wearing of buttons/badges of a victim, etc., has been ruled to be Prejudicial to a defendant, it is not possible to be prejudicial to the Prosecution by law.
Either the Judge will order it removed, or the Prosecution will dismiss you under one of it’s challenges.
Twelve individuals. It takes all twelve jurors to nullify. If less than twelve vote not guilty, then it’s a hung jury, which means the state gets another go if they want.
And if the twelve jurors (assuming they’re representative of the community) vote not guilty because they think the law should not apply to the circumstances of the case, I’m not going to say justice has failed.
Look, I tend to the “pro” side of jury nullification, but this statement seriously undermines your arguments.
Think of a jury as just another electorate holding a very limited election on an issue - “guilty or not”? Then we’re back to being democratic.
IIRC “Republic” in the good old days just meant that an autocrat who ran the place was periodically voted into office. It did not imply that “democratic” applied to the whole government process.
Originally Posted by mmmbeer
We do NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic.
How? The form of government just dictates how the law got made. It has nothing to do with jury nullification.
It undermines your argument in the same way as saying “I’m not a person; I’m a man” would undermine your argument. It discredits you.
I’ll wait for Pleonast, but thank you for your opinion.
How about this:
How would jury nullification have prevented either of these things from happening?