If you are sitting on a Jury and the facts presented convince you that the prosecutor’s case met the requirements of proof that the defendant had committed the crime you have the option to decide to vote not guilty effectively nullifying the law in that case. Under what circumstances would you do so?
I see a few different options, let me know if you think of others.
Never, you would always enforce the law regardless of your opinions of the law.
You believe that the law is unjust. One classic example was that many northern juries refused to convict in accordance with the fugitive slave act.
You believe the punishment is unjust. For example a person who would be subject to a harsh mandatory minimum sentence or the death penalty.
You believe the enforcement of the law is unjust. You believe that the defendant is being unfairly targeted due to his membership in some unpopular group (race, sexual orientation, political beliefs, religion, etc.)
IF I did not feel that a law was just, I would not lie when questioned about my ability to decide a case involving said law, and I would be excused from the jury. Problem solved.
no not the usual way any more than a presidential veto or a supreme court ruling is. The usual way is for legislatures to repeal bad laws or better yet never passing them in the first place. This is just one more check.
And a pretty ineffective one, if you think about it. Here is an unjust law and, instead if fighting to have it changed, you wait for the extremely unlikely chance that:
You will be selected to sit on a jury
The case you will be involved with will involve that particular law
The jury selection process won’t find you out, and
You get a majority of the other jurors to agree to do this with you!
BTW, even in the very unlikely event that you have managed to accomplish all this, you still haven’t gotten rid of the law you have labeled as “unjust”.
Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to do it the normal way?
Naw. Your way involves lying to stay on the jury-Not exactly a misdemeanor. I’m not sure if someone who is willing to so easily commit fraud because “the ends justify the means” has the moral right to judge whether another law is “unjust”.
My own belief is somewhere between 1 and 2. I would nullify only if I thought the law was something the government had no right to make laws about, e.g, laws making people slaves or sodomy laws, things like that.
But I think the government has the right to determine what drugs are illegal and what the speed limit should be, or the age of majority, and even though I might disagree where the line should be, I respect the government’s right to draw that line, and would not nullify in those cases.
At any rate, I would not lie about it during Jury Selection.
But, if in jury selection, you ask the judge about nullification, he will tell you that nullification is not a legal option, so the judge has lied. One might not feel morally compelled to tell the truth before a lying judge.
The judge does have the discretion to excuse you from the jury if you state or otherwise indicate that you are about to nullify, but he has no other power to penalize you, for you have committed no crime in nullifying…
If you lie and state that you have no problem trying the case under that particular law, there will be a problem…your interpretation of the judge’s obligations notwithstanding. “If he can lie, then I can lie” ain’t gonna fly.
I’ve been on a jury, and the specific charge against the defendant doesn’t always come up, and it certainly isn’t the case that each juror is specifically asked whether or not he or she feels a law is just. It’s only in death penalty cases that a jury is “death penalty qualified.” And even then, a death penalty qualified jury does not have to impose the death penalty after hearing the evidence. Sometimes they do not, especially in cases of very young defendants.
So it is certainly possible that a juror does not realize until after being seated, and the commencement of the trial, that the law, or the charges, are seriously flawed.
Of course. And, yes, precisely because the action of removing you because of that question is an immoral action, which means another immoral action of equal value to prevent such is acceptable.
I understand some uber-religious people acting like lying is always wrong, but not anyone else. Lying is wrong when it produces bad outcomes. Lying about nullification to preserve your right to nullify is not a bad outcome.
Sure, if you think nullification is bad, you might think the result is bad. But then, you aren’t the one who would be put in the position to lie.
The legal system is all sorts of fucked up in this country. They deliberately choose jurors who cannot make an informed decision. They give judges dictatorial control, including the ability to imprison someone indefinitely. Defense lawyers are expected to defend people who they know actually did it. The adversarial system ensures that no one is interested in the truth. It’s just the same as our “both side are equally valid” that we see in the news.
Keeping a little power to oneself to thwart the system when it will result in an immoral outcome is a very good thing indeed.
By the time the laws got so bad that I would consider committing perjury, just to oppose them…it’s WAY too late for any such form of protest. By then, the Gestapo is already holding midnight “trials” of their own.
I would hate like anything having to tell the judge, “I oppose capital punishment in all cases.” It would get me dismissed from the jury, and some rat bastard could lose his life because of it. My personal morals are in a hopeless conflict. If I lie…I might be able to save someone’s life. But I have to undermine all my other moral values to do that.
I might actually have to tell the judge, “I cannot answer that question.” Then I get a contempt charge against me. Better than perjury, I guess.
I always wonder at those who live in a robust representative democracy and who think that their personal opinion is and ought to be above legal processes. What kind of society would we have if everyone behaved in that way?
If a law is truly unjust, protest it openly, work to change it, be loud and proud about your disagreement, take court action, marshal your arguments and leave no legal stone unturned to fix it. Laws indeed may be bad laws, indeed they frequently are. But the legal process is what saves us from anarchy.
Obligatory clip from “A Man For All Seasons.” If you can’t bear 3+ minutes of wonderful acting, the relevant bit starts at about 2:12.
I do question the moral authority of the state to punish anyone. I don’t feel they have the moral right, and is a abuse of power ‘because they can’.
The system based on punishment is very damaging to society, as the effect of the crime, in the karmic sense is basically doubled by the revenge of the state - and that is an equal evil to the crime.
Now if there was care to rehabilitate then we can talk.
You do realize that jury nullification has been a part of the legal process for longer than we’ve had a constitution right? That that right of a jury to nullify has been held as valid by US courts and the supreme court since the 1700s on? This isn’t some wacky concept that some conspiracy nut thought up.
As far as a jury thinking their personal opinion is better than the rest of society isn’t that what judges do regularly whenever they declare a law unconstitutional? In fact the only way for jury nullification to have any real impact is for a large number of juries to feel the same way and all refuse to convict based on a bad law. Since no jury decision can set precedent the way a judges ruling does Jury nullification really is the will of society overturning the will of the government in a real way that a single judge or panel of judges overturning a law just doesn’t.