A jury acquittal is unreviewable. A guilty verdict can be overturned in all sorts of ways, but a not guilty verdict can only be overturned in highly unusual circumstances. I’m not sure exactly, but I think pretty much the only way this could happen is if it were proved that the jury or judge or prosecutor took a bribe, and maybe not even then. IANAL.
So if a jury returns a not guilty verdict it’s finished, the prosecution can never attempt to retry the defendent for the same crime, even if new evidence comes to light, even if it were proved he perjured himself. A judge can set aside a guilty verdict, but he cannot set aside a not guilty verdict.
And you don’t need the entire jury to nullify, because jury verdicts must be unanimous. So if even one juror keeps voting not guilty, and refuses to change their verdict, then the defendant cannot be declared guilty. If the other 11 jurors keep voting to convict, then after a while the judge will declare a mistrial. If there’s a mistrial, then the prosecutor can try to prosecute again.
I don’t think you have a moral duty to accept to suffer the full penalty for breaking an immoral law. Open civil disobedience is fine and dandy, but quite often doesn’t help and IMO only if it is useful for your (assumedly just) cause should you follow this path. Otherwise, you’re better off staying free and help undermining the law some more. You’ve no duty to accept being punished for doing the right thing if you can avoid it and if it serves no purpose.
Oakminster, I inferred earlier that you’re an attorney; am I correct?
Not that it matters. Because THIS layman isn’t ARGUING the law. I’m arguing that under certain circumstances the law can be unjust and the moral position is to oppose it.
By that “logic”, you could justify political assassination or even armed revolt. We live in a nation of laws. If everybody decides they should act according to whatever they determine sua sponte to be moral, the system collapses.
I would argue that we should presume that every law should be followed. We shouldn’t disobey laws whenever the whim strikes us. Laws should only be broken for a very good reason. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. But sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do. Just don’t be suprised if you end up in jail.
Opposing an unjust law is fine, and I’d defend to the death your right to do so by lawful means. The means you propose in this thread are not lawful, and do violence to the trial by jury system.
These are two different situations, indeed, but it doesnt change my point of view. If you’re called for jury duty (or any other situation where you find yourself directly involved in the situation : you’re required to help law enforcement officers, you’re drafted, etc…) you can’t just brush away your responsability. Maybe you’d rather not be there, but you nevertheless became part of the process. By accepting to participate in this process instead of hindering it, you’re endorsing it and directly shoulder a share of the responsabilty for the immoral consequences.
It’s certainly more effective to directly hide slaves in the hypothetical situation proposed, but the fact that there are more effective actions or that you might fail isn’t an excuse for accepting to take part in the despicable action considered.
Absolutely. Or even a civil war, as it has been the case in the historical example we’re discussing.
And I would remind you that your nation of law has been the result of an armed revolt.
Or is preserved. Or is replaced by a better one. And ultimately it will be up to you, and you only, to choose where you side, on the basis of your values. “It was the law” is no more an excuse than “it was an order”. You can’t get rid of your moral responsability by hiding behind statutes.
I figure if the lawyers have come up with legislation that is offensive in its obvious unfairness and potential for misapplication, it’s perfectly valid for a jury of laymen to yank their chains.
If you have difficulties arguing law with laymen, you might want to rethink posting about the topic on a public message board, since that’s most assuredly who you’ll wind up arguing with. I understand perfectly well that it is one’s legal duty to follow the law, that’s pretty much a tautology. I also feel that morality trumps legality in some circumstances, hence jury nullification is a just and necessary adjunct to the legal system, however annoying lawyers may find it.
So you feel that civil disobedience is not a valid method for effecting political or social change? Could the American civil rights movement have succeeded through legal means alone?
There’s an unfortunate flip side to that, though. In the decades leading up to that era, all-white juries in the south routinely acquitted white defendants of killing black victims, Emmett Till being a classic case.
The point being that for every case where jury nullification was the moral thing to do, there are probably several (or even many) cases of it being put to immoral ends.
It is not a lawful method, so I wouldn’t advise it. At the same time, I might very well offer pro bono representation if I felt the cause was just. The second question is interesting, and possibly worthy of a separate thread. On the one hand, much was accomplished through the Courts, like Brown vs Board and a series of cases including Heart of Atlanta Hotel and Ollie’s Barbeque (sorry, I don’t remember the full captions…Con Law was a long time ago)’ and other major civil rights cases. On the other hand, without the civil disobedience, the movement may have failed to generate the necessary popular support.
Well, they’re certainly relevant in discussions of nullification. As a guess, I’d say a key difference between a moral nullification and an immoral nullification is the difference between saying you dislike the law regardless of the defendant and saying the law’s okay but you don’t want to apply it this defendant.
Anyway, it’s just fine if Oakminster can’t advise it. He (I assume) is bound by the ethical standards of his profession. Those not bound by a particular ethical code and simply the general social ethics of being a good citizen have somewhat broader, less specific responsibilities. It’s somewhat less fine if he wants to be patronizing about it. It’s just not going to play well on a board full of intelligent people of varying backgrounds, skills and professions.
We can all agree, I hope, that white racists should be convicted if they murder a black child.
However, there are more defensible cases of possible jury nullification based on the defendent and the circumstances. How about a mother being tried for killing her daughter’s rapist/killer? How about, in a civil case, a large corporation being tried for an action against working-class families that’s clearly immoral, but may not be strictly forbidden by law?
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, though. As I said earlier, I think the moral thing to do if you’re called to sit on a jury involving a broken law (unless the system is so broken that sabotage is the only chance for justice) is to refuse to participate.
Actually, I can see going for lesser charges like manslaughter if they’re available, rather than just give her a walk. I’m personally disinclined to let revenge-killers slide, more so if there is the slightest doubt of the alleged killer’s guilt (i.e. she killed him before or during his own trial).
If the action’s not clearly (or at least plausibly arguably) forbidden by law, how did the case get to court at all? If it was by some specious misapplication of tort, I’m inclined to side with the defendant.
Well, in the unlikely event I’m ever in this situation and someone asks me during voir-dire what my views on the law are, I’ll truthfully answer. I’m not sure if I can just bail, though.
Well, unless I say I’m prejudiced against all races.
The jury is the finder of fact. They may find that certain facts favor the Defendant. That’s how the Defense is going to present it’s case. They may argue temporary insanity–which varies by state, but is sometimes explained as at the time of the alleged offense, the Defendant was unable to understand that his conduct was wrong. They may argue self defense, accident, or various other legal theories. If even one juror honestly reaches that conclusion after considering the evidence and the jury instructions, that juror is entitled to hold out for not guilty, even if it results in a hung jury. This is a legitimate option, and does not require violating the juror’s duty under the law.
The jury also usually has the option of finding the Defendant guilty of a lesser charge. Maybe what happened was not murder, it was manslaughter instead.
Also, remember that in order to convict, the jury must find that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Most crimes reuire proof of a mens rea–a mental state, such as willfully, deliberately, recklessly–as one of those elements.
The point I’m trying to make is that the juror should vote according to his understanding of the evidence, not his individual moral beliefs. In many cases, it is possible to arrive at the same result through legitimate means.
Jury nullification is entirely legal, so you’re still ok answering questions about following the law. Jury nullification is one way the normal citizen can tell the politicians that they’ve got it wrong in a way that demands attention (qv William Penn). IMHO jury nullification is acceptable in cases where the average person thinks that they would have done the same - if you’ve done the right thing, then you shouldn’t be punished for it - or the law is simply bad.