# Jury nullification questions

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [August 4, 2010, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119 "2010-08-04T08:43:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119/61 "2010-08-12T22:17:12Z")

</div>

I think **md2000** ’s point was that a jury can concern itself about what is just or not, without having to find a rationalization within the law as written.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119/62 "2010-08-12T23:34:29Z")

</div>

I think it was more than that. He was justifying treating jurisprudence as unimportant on the basis that jurisprudence is nothing but window dressing for judges’ rationalization.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119/63 "2010-08-13T12:42:41Z")

</div>

> [@acsenray](#):
>
> There are actual legal standards involved here. Do the phrases “rational basis,” “intermediate scrutiny,” and “strict scrutiny” mean anything to you?

Not to me. I shall now go and look them up. It’s a poor day when you don’t learn something new.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119/64 "2010-08-13T14:15:54Z")

</div>

> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> [http://www.salon.com/life/col/waldman/2005/04/25/limon/index.html](http://www.salon.com/life/col/waldman/2005/04/25/limon/index.html)
> 
> So, if I were on a jury and applied your facts only, don’t judge the law system, I would have to send that kid up there to jail for 17 years for a consensual blowjob.

You are ok with an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old?

Whatever about 15 on 14, that is waay too much of an age-gap for me to be comfortable with.

An 18-year-old is miles away developmentally from a 14-year-old.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119/65 "2010-08-13T14:33:18Z")

</div>

> [@Laudenum](#):
>
> > [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
> >
> > [http://www.salon.com/life/col/waldman/2005/04/25/limon/index.html](http://www.salon.com/life/col/waldman/2005/04/25/limon/index.html)
> > 
> > So, if I were on a jury and applied your facts only, don’t judge the law system, I would have to send that kid up there to jail for 17 years for a consensual blowjob.
> 
> You are ok with an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old?
> 
> Whatever about 15 on 14, that is waay too much of an age-gap for me to be comfortable with.
> 
> An 18-year-old is miles away developmentally from a 14-year-old.

There are degrees n there between “okay with” and “deserves a sentence on a par with armed robbery” In fact, the court that reviewed Limon did not exonerate the kid, but said to resentence him in accord with the state’s “Romeo and Juliet” law. Since that prescribed a maximum penalty measured in months, and he’d already been locked up five years, he was released with time served.

However, you have to remember two things in the particular scenario of Limon:

1. **Both** boys were developmentally disabled;
2. It was the 14-year-old who initiated sexual contact.  
It’s not quite the older boy molests younger boy scenario people seem to imagine when they first hear about it

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullification-questions/549119.md?page=3)