Can a Defendant (or his Attorney) Ask the Jury to Nullify?

[DrCube]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Are you proposing that all criminal laws should be enacted by plebiscite?

Nope, just that regular joes have a check on overreaching laws. A lot of people will vote for anything to be “tough on crime”. But they’ll think again when some innocent kid is facing jail time for a victimless crime.

Nullification shouldn’t be used lightly or often, but the power is absolutely necessary. Are you saying a “jury of your peers” should be nothing but mindless tools of the court? The whole reason your peers are a part of the justice process is so that there is a check on government power. Otherwise, we’d just have a second judge rule on the facts and call it a day.

Here’s a question: Prosecutorial discretion. Should it be used? Should we really allow some yokel with a law degree decide who will be prosecuted and for what? What about law enforcement? Should they have discretion about what laws they enforce? Or should all players in the justice system really be unthinking automatons executing the instructions our legislators programmed them with?

There should there be multiple points in the system where somebody can say, “This law is bullshit, and at least in this small domain where I hold power, I won’t let it stand”?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@DrCube

The whole reason your peers are a part of the justice process is so that there is a check on government power. Otherwise, we’d just have a second judge rule on the facts and call it a day.

The jury is there to prevent the government from convicting innocent people, not to prevent convictions of guilty people who broke laws they don’t like.

[gms453]

@md2000

Some of the situations may involve disagreement with law. Others may simply involve disagrement with facts.

For example, Canadian police used to occasionally include “jailhouse informants” describing cellmate confessons to prove their case in questionable prosecutions. To my mind, the reliablity of someone who is trading favours for a good testimony is very questionable, and it seems most of the time when that is the most damning testimony they have, teh whole case is a fabrication. Plus, we have had some high-profile cases in the last decade or two where the police fabricated evidence or totally ignored evidence. Just because I agree with the law in principle does not mean I agree the case falls under that law.

Similarly, the Canadian case that most offends me is the one where a man put his severly disabled and vegetative daughter in a truck and ran the exhaust in, gassing her. The prosecutor argued he did this because he was tired of caring for her, rather than because she was scheduled for another major surgery - remove thighbones - to alleviate pain caused by muscle strain of her disease; he simply wanted to put her out of her misery. Is that REALLY first degree murder? Is a mercy killing murder in your eyes too? He intended to have her die, but to my mind he did not intend to MURDER her. Given that the mandatory sentence for first-degree murder was 10 years - a detail the jury was not allowed to know - some said later they would not have convicted if they had known the sentence. If I disbelieve the prosecutor’s premise, or do not consider what the father did as “murder”, am I refusing to “follow the law”?

Aside from the stupidity, “follow the law” can mean everything from doing what the law says to “do you understand what the law is saying?” (“Yes, I follow, I understand what it is telling me.”) So, in a Clintonesque manner, if you don’t make it compeletely clear what you are asking, I am under no obligation to clarify what I am answering.

Quibble and rationalize all you want, but the simple truth is that in PA prospective jurors in criminal cases are given extensive explanations as to what “following the law” means. These explanations are standardized and are readily available online free of charge.

[gms453]

@DrCube

Nope, just that regular joes have a check on overreaching laws. A lot of people will vote for anything to be “tough on crime”. But they’ll think again when some innocent kid is facing jail time for a victimless crime.

Nullification shouldn’t be used lightly or often, but the power is absolutely necessary. Are you saying a “jury of your peers” should be nothing but mindless tools of the court? The whole reason your peers are a part of the justice process is so that there is a check on government power. Otherwise, we’d just have a second judge rule on the facts and call it a day.

Here’s a question: Prosecutorial discretion. Should it be used? Should we really allow some yokel with a law degree decide who will be prosecuted and for what? What about law enforcement? Should they have discretion about what laws they enforce? Or should all players in the justice system really be unthinking automatons executing the instructions our legislators programmed them with?

There should there be multiple points in the system where somebody can say, “This law is bullshit, and at least in this small domain where I hold power, I won’t let it stand”?

Wishful thinking: A “renegage” juror almost never results in an acquital. At most s/he may cause a hung jury. This results in an mistrial, and that almost always results in a re-trial with a new jury, which almost always results in a conviction.

[DrCube]

@gms453

Wishful thinking: A “renegage” juror almost never results in an acquital. At most s/he may cause a hung jury. This results in an mistrial, and that almost always results in a re-trial with a new jury, which almost always results in a conviction.

Well, that’s my point. If 12 random strangers agree that the law shouldn’t be applied in this case, that’s a much higher bar (and much more representative sample of what society “wants”) than Joe DA letting a murderer go because they testified against a mob boss or something.

[mmmbeer]

@doreen

No, it’s not ( at least not in most places) . If it was a hurdle deliberately placed in the way of the state , it would absolutely be in the jury instructions Just like jurors are instructed to vote guilty only if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than because the defendant is probably guilty

Perhaps you missed this bit in my post 25?
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law].”

I submit that our first Chief Justice knew more about how our justice system should work than you do…

I didn’t mention any Klansmen ,and I gave other examples, but you know what? I’m tired of hearing the community doesn’t agree with the law. No ,those 12 people don’t agree with the law.If there are 12 wifebeaters on the jury ( or 3 wifebeaters and 9 people who want to go home), no one gets convicted of beating his wife. Doesn’t tell you a damn thing about the reast of the community. If the community as a whole strongly disagreed with the law, the politicians would be falling all over themselves to repeal it in order to get reelected and the district attorney would stop prosecuting violations in order to get re-elected and the cops would stop making arrests because it would be pointless.

So, the people who are on trial before all this happens should just suck it up and take one for the team because you’re worried that whites are running around murdering blacks and other whites are gonna let em go if the accused will buy them a cold beer after the trial?

[mmmbeer]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s the same system, guy.

You can tell how it is by how one is a Democracy and one is a Republic. I see now. Thanks.

[mmmbeer]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The jury is there to prevent the government from convicting innocent people, not to prevent convictions of guilty people who broke laws they don’t like.

YES, it is. The legislature is not bound to only make laws that the people want. They can make anything illegal that they decide. Part of the reason the jury trial exists to ensure that only the laws the people want enforced are enforced.

[DrCube]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The jury is there to prevent the government from convicting innocent people…

So we agree then. Cool.

[Acsenray]

@mmmbeer

YES, it is. The legislature is not bound to only make laws that the people want. They can make anything illegal that they decide.

Yes, and if the people don’t want that, then they have the power to vote in a new legislature.

Part of the reason the jury trial exists to ensure that only the laws the people want enforced are enforced.

No, it’s not. It’s to be an impartial judge of facts and that is all. The power to nullify is essentially the power to nullify the entire concept of justice.

[mmmbeer]

You people think it is scary that someone might vote not guilty because they believe a person shouldn’t rot in a prison cell and have lots of nasty things done to them (far worse things than they have ever done to another person) just because politicians thought some non-violent act should be against the law? I find it eye opening and truly terrifying that so of my fellow citizens worship at the altar of the holy Federal Government. I never knew so many people would march lockstep to the drumbeat of Nationalism and so hastily throw away the ideals of freedom and liberty that we were blessed to receive by luck of birth.
This is the kind of thinking that I find scary. You could very well be called Nodders.

[Acsenray]

@mmmbeer

just because politicians thought some non-violent act should be against the law?

Politicians don’t act in some vacuum. Especially when it comes to criminal law, politicians pretty much vote the way that they think will get their constituencies to re-elect them. Far more than areas of regulation and other matters, think like crimes and putting people in jail are red meat for voters. Those laws are there by and large because the majority of voters want them to be there. The democratic process gives it legitimacy. If you don’t respect that in our system, then you really don’t have anything.

I find it eye opening and truly terrifying that so of my fellow citizens worship at the altar of the holy Federal Government. I never knew so many people would march lockstep to the drumbeat of Nationalism and so hastily throw away the ideals of freedom and liberty that we were blessed to receive by luck of birth.
This is the kind of thinking that I find scary. You could very well be called Nodders.

This is all bullshit. I don’t worship the “Federal Government.” I don’t even spell it with capital letters. I don’t believe in Nationalism. What I do believe in is democratic processes, institutional integrity, disinterested administration of justice, and accountability. Jury nullification violates all those principles that are the foundation of the system that protects our freedom. It takes accountable institutions to protect freedom. Unaccountability leads to the strong oppressing the weak.

Weakening any link in that chain weakens the whole system and leads to entropy, making it even more difficult to ensure freedom and justice.

[mmmbeer]

@Acsenray

Politicians don’t act in some vacuum. Especially when it comes to criminal law, politicians pretty much vote the way that they think will get their constituencies to re-elect them. Far more than areas of regulation and other matters, think like crimes and putting people in jail are red meat for voters. Those laws are there by and large because the majority of voters want them to be there. The democratic process gives it legitimacy. If you don’t respect that in our system, then you really don’t have anything.

So I am mistaken in saying that there are people in prison prosecuted for non-violent crimes? My bad.
There used to be a concept in the law that without a victim, there is no crime. Now the government has taken it on themselves to make things crimes that should not be under our system, but we are supposed to just nod our heads when one of our fellow citizens is on trial for these and send em on up the river. I’ll pass on that advice, but thanks.

This is all bullshit. I don’t worship the “Federal Government.” I don’t even spell it with capital letters. I don’t believe in Nationalism. What I do believe in is democratic processes, institutional integrity, disinterested administration of justice, and accountability. Jury nullification violates all those principles that are the foundation of the system that protects our freedom. It takes accountable institutions to protect freedom. Unaccountability leads to the strong oppressing the weak.
Weakening any link in that chain weakens the whole system and leads to entropy, making it even more difficult to ensure freedom and justice.

Yeah, if we purposefully let non-violent offenders off, or if we disagree that Dr. Jack shouldn’t go to jail by doing what an elderly person wants, then the whole system will come crumbling down. I just don’t see that. At a minimum, it gets people talking about it.

My rant above was not to you specifically, but to the idea that the government doesn’t make bad law and we should just be automatons applying what they say without thinking for ourselves.

[Acsenray]

@mmmbeer

My rant above was not to you specifically, but to the idea that the government doesn’t make bad law and we should just be automatons applying what they say without thinking for ourselves.

If law is bad then it should be changed through the democratic mechanisms for changing law. If bad law can simply be disregarded then good law can also simply be disregarded.

[mmmbeer]

@Acsenray

If law is bad then it should be changed through the democratic mechanisms for changing law. If bad law can simply be disregarded then good law can also simply be disregarded.

True enough, but that begs the question, why are our jails full of non-violent criminals except in places where the people have sent them back home from their court cases?

I’m all for working within the bounds of the system, but when the very system squashes down on you too hard, you ooze out to the side of the system. Like when black markets crop up in response to overbearing regulations and bureaucracy. And the governments response is not to get rid of the onerous laws, it is to build more jails!

[Acsenray]

@mmmbeer

True enough, but that begs the question, why are our jails full of non-violent criminals except in places where the people have sent them back home from their court cases?

How about: Because the majority of voters want harsh drug laws?

[kayaker]

@Acsenray

How about: Because the majority of voters want harsh drug laws?

And when that tyrannical majority has locked up 48% of the population?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

… you’ll realize you’re actually a fictional character in an Augusto Boal novel?

[Acsenray]

Then where are those jury nullifiers going to come from anyway?

[mmmbeer]

@Acsenray

How about: Because the majority of voters want harsh drug laws?

That is where the Republic part of our government is SUPPOSED to kick in and say tough shit. This is not a Democracy and you, majority of everyone except 1 person, do not get to take away his rights by ballot. If you are not hurting anyone else, I (and 200 million others) don’t get to put you in jail, and by extension, we don’t get to get others (read the government) to do it for us.