Numerous people have mentioned the white men who were acquitted in the American South for murdering black men, women and children.
While nullification doesn’t change he law, it sure as hell helps the otherwise law abiding citizen who just so happens to run afoul of prohibition.
And what would happen if every person put on trial for victimless (drug) crimes were found “not guilty”?
I meant recently. I’m aware of the abuse you mention.
They could repeal prohibition! Or prosecutors would realize their conviction rates ain’t gonna keep em in a job and tell the lawdogs to stop arresting people who aren’t hurting anyone. The LE types could go after real criminals who ARE hurting people for a change.
Didn’t they already do that once? And they don’t learn from their mistakes.
Thanks for that toss-up BTW. Did I knock it out of the park for ya?
hanging curve ball.
Here’s the whole story from a less-biased source.
Because they nullified the case before hearing it, they never got to hear the whole story.
edited to add: That bit where he tearfully holds his infant son is a bit less touching when you know his history of getting women pregnant and abandoning them.
[quote=“mmmbeer, post:84, topic:629597”]
They could repeal prohibition! Or prosecutors would realize their conviction rates ain’t gonna keep em in a job and tell the lawdogs to stop arresting people who aren’t hurting anyone. The LE types could go after real criminals who ARE hurting people for a change.
Didn’t they already do that once? And they don’t learn from their mistakes.
See, it is working…from the judge in czarcasm’s link…“I think it’s going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount,” Deschamps said.
woohoo. 1 county down, a shitload to go.
[quote=“mmmbeer, post:87, topic:629597”]
Did you read the whole link? Look again at the wronged party that got “rescued”.
Juries are the last hurdle the state must jump before imposing criminal sanctions on a person. If the state can’t convince the jurors that the defendant deserves conviction, then the state doesn’t deserve to get that conviction.
That means the state cannot reliably enforce an unpopular law. That’s democracy at its most base level. If the unpopular law is unjust, then nullification is just. If the law is just, then nullification is not.
Ultimately, it is immoral for a juror to vote to convict someone of an unjust law. This is good. That the people may use their right for a bad purpose is one of those “it’s a feature, not a bug” parts of democracy.
There is a general parallel between juries and voting rights. We give people the right to vote and expect them to vote wisely, but in fact many people are ignorant bigots and vote stupidly. That is the cost of giving power to the people.
Shouldn’t a jury actually hear the whole case before making such a momentous decision, or should a first impression be enough? Look over the link I provided-because the jury never went through the trial they believed this was just about an average joe that got caught with a minute amount of pot, and it was a bit more complicated than that, obviously.
I’m not sure if this is directed at me, but what’s your point? Yes, jurors should make informed decisions. So should voters. Not all do.
[quote=“Czarcasm, post:88, topic:629597”]
Is any of that relevant to the charge of simple possession with which we are discussing? Would it be allowed? Or the better question is should it be allowed? I don’t see how it is connected.
If Missoula has spoken on this issue, ref: “The attorneys and the judge all noted Missoula County’s approval in 2006 of Initiative 2, which required law enforcement to treat marijuana crimes as their lowest priority”, and the LE side keeps dragging people up on these charges, I completely support nullification.
This is another example of government out of control…The people said they are not interested in sending people to jail for this type “crime”. The state keeps doing what they want and the people tell them to pound sand. Gotta love that!
And this scares you?
Jurors deciding cases before they are even heard scares the living shit out of me. The judge should have told them to get their asses back into the court, and if they wish to nullify anything they could do it after the trial was over.
If the entire country took a pledge that said they would never convict a person for minor drug crimes alone for any reason, that would not scare me in the slightest. Whenever I think of jury nullification I think of MLK - an unjust law is no law at all.
Based on the number of laws that are decided to be in whole or part unconstitutional, I would suggest that not all laws are carefully sacrosanct rules crafted with the rights and privileges of citizen in mind.
I agree, a jury that decides “not guilty” before hearing the case - then that was a bit irresponsible. However, the fault then lies with the prosecutor too. If a jury could refuse to convict for possession, then why try him on possession of personal amounts? Why, because despite the case, they did not have the evidence to charge him with trafficking (or they would have). When someone is not charged with a crime, logically not guilty is their result. Why did they not charge him with just a firearms/parole violation?
I don’t understand - you are complaining the guy was guilty of other heinous crimes, which i presume juries would not nullify on. However, he was not charged with those crimes, hence not convicted. That’s how the law works. You don’t get to say “convict this guy of A because as a terrible person, who did B and C which we can’t prove, he deserves to be punished.”
The article mentions his horrible history of drugs, violence, and neglecting his children - however, as I understand the justice system, those details have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the possession charge and could not even be mentioned during the trial.
It’s hard to tell from the article whether he was also acquitted or plea-dealed the trafficking charges.
However, even as someone who has never done drugs, I also have trouble convicting someone for 1/16th oz. of pot.
Even so, this was less of a “jury nullification” and seems more like that the court could not find 12 people who agreed the charges had merit. That’s even more of a condemnation of the whole system and a desire to charge in disregard of natural justice. technically, travelling 1/2mph over the limit is a violation - but try finding 12 people who would agree to convict.
I have to ask, it’s not mentioned - how did they know the details of the case? If you ask “do you have a problem convicting a person of possession of 1/16oz.?” should you be surprised if they say “yes”?
He was charged with other crimes, including felony distribution of dangerous drugs. Apparently ( and it’s not very clear from the article) the DA made a deal not because the only charge was possessing 1/16 of an ounce of pot, but because given that the potential jurors had already said they wouldn’t convict on the pot charge , it was impossible to tell what they would do on the other(s). You can’t presume they won’t nullify on those as well.
And I think of the any number of other cases of jury nullification where the nullification had nothing to do with the whether the law was just , but only with whether the jurors believed a white man should be punished for beating a black man or whether police should be punished for using excessive force on criminals . It often seems to me that people in favor of jury nullification believe that the entire community shares their values and that juries don’t and won’t use the power ( not right) in situations that the proponents wouldn’t agree with.
That’s the risk you take with jury nullification: it can be used for good (e.g., nullifying in cases where people are charged for harboring runaway slaves), or ill (e.g., nullifying in cases where a white commits a crime against a black). Or it can be used in cases where good or ill is in the eye of the beholder; I’m sure there are many in Sangamon County who would be quite happy to send someone up the river for 10 years for possession of a dime bag*, and equally as many (myself included) who wouldn’t convict someone for pot possession in a million years.
*Officially, in Sangamon County, if you got caught with a dime bag you’re most likely going to get your weed confiscated, get a Notice to Appear, and face a fine in the neighborhood of $100. Butt he point abides.
Was that distribution of dangerous drugs being directed to someone against their will? Because personally, I don’t see any fucking difference be,tween giving someone 1/16th of an ounce and giving someone a quarter pound. If they cool win it.
I know that, but somehow I suspect that many of the same people who are all for jury nullification in the case of pot possession are outraged when it’s used to acquit the police who use excessive force. I think they either minimize or ignore the risk of nullification being used in all sorts of cases that have nothing to do with drug possession- everything from police brutality to domestic violence cases to rape cases. And you can’t really do that- either the jury represents the community and has the right to ignore any laws it doesn’t like, including those that make it illegal for whites to murder blacks or the jury has a responsibility to apply the law to the facts and convict someone who has committed a crime even if they don’t like the law. If a a person is a proponent of “the jury represents the community and can ignore any law it doesn’t like”, then that person has no business being outraged when the jury does just that.