Venerated eco-saint grows MJ & shrooms & might lose his farm under home seizure laws

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Jury nullification may be a form of civil disobedience. But I think it’s almost always the wrong one.

Consider: the purpose of civil disobedience is to remove in the public mind the justification for a law by showing that ordinary decent people will violate it, not for personal gain or satisfaction, but simply because it is an unjust law. As WhyNot pointed out, the only moral force it has comes from the willing acceptance of punishment for the transgression – a reassurance that they believe in the rule of law, and a testament to the seriousness of their intent. It’s about forcing abuse of authority into the open by making it apply, publicly, to “people like us,” no matter which “us” is yours.

Jury nullification, on the other hand, is an expression of contempt not for any unjust law, but for the rule of law itself. The only thing broken is the faith that a jury can be trusted to find, without fear nor favor, according to the facts and the letter of the law. However much one deplores a particular law or loves a particular defendant or hates the way a prosecutor wears her hair, this faith is not the part of the system that needs to be undermined. In fact, it’s the part that needs to be preserved, at all costs, if you care about a free society.

Here’s a guy who broke the law in furtherance of his own personal satisfaction, if not profit. Jury nullification in his case would not be a repudiation of the law, just of the idea that we’re all equal under it, and it would decrease the chances that the law will ever be changed. The pleading on his behalf is hypocritical and shameful.

Steve MB, that’s not what jury of one’s peers means, and even if it were, it isn’t practiced that way anyhow.
[/QUOTE]

I think jury nullification is a useful corrective where selective enforcement of rarely-enforced laws is used to target individuals - not this case under discussion (which I think falls into the category of over-punitive laws being passed in a popular moral panic).

In short, jury nullification is useful to signal the necessity of removing unpopular laws (there otherwise being almost zero legislative interest in this), rather than to protect popular people from (apparently) popular laws.

If Mr. Eco-Saint were (say) being prosecuted for “sodomy” because the powers that be did not like him, even though no-one for the past fifty years has ever been prosecuted for that - then jury nullification would be a useful tool and corrective.

Where however the people of his state are happy to see “low-lifes” getting their property confiscated for growing or selling drugs, I would agree that the use of jury nullification would not be a good thing.

42

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
The justice system doesn’t work that way and you know it. Justice often comes down to the lawyers you can afford ::cough::OJ::cough:: the publicity the case gets ::cough:: OJ & Rodney King ::cough:: and we’re perfectly capable of coming up with things like three strikes rules where the first offense isn’t dealt with nearly as harshly as the third or fourth offense. That’s certainly how it works with drunk driving laws. A first offense is dealt with much less harshly than a second or third offense within seven years.

“Do the crime, do the time,” is highly negotiable.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, there are powerful folk who can work or even break the system. It’s been true for all of history. But I’m still glad that our system is built the way it is.

Phlosphr, I also see big differences between the upstanding person and the scummy lowlife. I’m just glad that the legal system doesn’t.

43

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
This is a perfect case for jury nullification. I’d vote him not guilty in a heartbeat.
[/QUOTE]

I have heard the arguments against jury nullification, but if I would be the “not guilty” vote here. If The War On Drugs lead to acquittal 90% of the time, maybe there would be a cease fire.

44

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Let’s say you’re on a jury for a miscegnation trial. A black man is on trial for having consensual sex with a white woman…
[/QUOTE]
I’ve turned over the whole jury nullification in my mind dozens of times, and while there are times when i find the idea quite appealing, i’m always left with the fact that it can be just as easily used to thwart (my idea of) justice as to promote (my idea of) justice.

For every miscegenation trial hypothetical, like yours, i have to consider the trial of an abortion clinic murderer who gets off because a pro-lifer decides on a course of jury nullification.

45

[QUOTE=mhendo]
I’ve turned over the whole jury nullification in my mind dozens of times, and while there are times when i find the idea quite appealing, i’m always left with the fact that it can be just as easily used to thwart (my idea of) justice as to promote (my idea of) justice.
[/QUOTE]

Like it or not, it’s currently a valid and legal course of action. Whether you choose to use it or not in your trial has no bearing whatsoever on whether someone will use it in another trial.

[QUOTE=Hypno-Toad]
I’ve never heard of any part of the constitution that says the law applies only to “bad” people. It’s a persons actions that break the law, not their character. Therefore, it’s the persons actions that should be the focus of prosecution. An upstanding citizen who grows 12 pot plants is just the same as a scummy lowlife who grows 12 pot plants. And I am very glad that the law works this way.
[/QUOTE]

Lol. You’re arguing against your own statement here. An “upstanding citizen” is called that because of his long standing history of good actions, and likewise the “scummy lowlife” has gotten that label because of his long standing history of bad actions. I mean if you are saying we shouldn’t take into account whether one guy is cheerful and the other guy rude or one guy white and the other black and poor that’s one thing, but usually the “upstanding citizen”/“lowlife” characterization can be based on more concrete things having to do with behavior, and even if you want to be strict about - it past criminal record. And judges certainly do take criminal records into account. I don’t see it as a big stretch to take other behavior into account. Not to mention that thing called “character witness”.

46

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Lol. You’re arguing against your own statement here. An “upstanding citizen” is called that because of his long standing history of good actions, and likewise the “scummy lowlife” has gotten that label because of his long standing history of bad actions. I mean if you are saying we shouldn’t take into account whether one guy is cheerful and the other guy rude or one guy white and the other black and poor that’s one thing, but usually the “upstanding citizen”/“lowlife” characterization can be based on more concrete things having to do with behavior, and even if you want to be strict about - it past criminal record. And judges certainly do take criminal records into account. I don’t see it as a big stretch to take other behavior into account. Not to mention that thing called “character witness”.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not arguing against myself. You’re defination of scummy vs upstanding is correct. Past behavior generally, but not always, determines our definition. BUT read the fourth sentence that you quoted from me again. It doesn’t matter that a guy has spent 50 years doing good deeds when he’s caught growing pot. He still grew the pot. All his prior good deeds did nothing to cause it to be OK to grow the pot. And the great thing about our system (as it’s designed if not always applied, Phlosphr) is that it doesn’t care about previous good behavior either. You can’t build up “credit” against future crime by being a good guy early on. (At least not in the legal system. The fact that we’re having this debate shows that you can do it culturally.)

47

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Like it or not, it’s currently a valid and legal course of action. Whether you choose to use it or not in your trial has no bearing whatsoever on whether someone will use it in another trial.
[/quote]
What a completely pointless and misguided response. I never said that there was a necessary connection between different trials; i merely made the point that, in evaluating my own opinions about jury nullification, one of the things that weighs against it is precisely its subjectivity, the fact that it always seems like an honorable and noble thing to do when you disagree with the morality of a particular law, and seems like a case a thwarting justice when you agree with the law.

48

My typing must somehow be less coherent than my internal monologue, because, in my head, I’m being much more persuasive.

An act of civil disobedience against an unjust law involves (a) intentionally breaking the unjust law, preferably in such a way as to make it clear that one derives no personal benefit from it; and (b) accepting punishment, so everyone knows that the lawbreakers are not opposed to the idea of civil society bound by rules and governed by Constitutional institutions, but are merely addressing by the strongest nonviolent means the aberration of a single unjust law.

Jury nullification necessarily revolves around individual cases, making personalities rather than law the issue, and it is always an act aimed not against any unjust law but against the judiciary itself, attacking and undermining the whole idea of jury trials, proving that individual citizens can’t be trusted to dispassionately evaluate facts and law in judgment of their peers. Jury nullification can’t prove that a law is bad, it can only prove that trial by jury is bad – because if you can’t trust people to understand facts and abide by the law, the rest is just politics and prejudice.

Jury nullification can save individual defendants (usually, I think, to society’s detriment), but it can’t kill any law or institution except for trial by jury itself. Trial by jury has been the cornerstone of freedom for almost a thousand years. It should not be jeopardized because a really nice guy decided getting high was more important than the stupid drug laws.

Malthus has posited a hypothetical in which an unpopular, archaic and rarely-enforced law is used by a corrupt government to target an otherwise blameless individual. S/he (probably he, I guess, huh?) agrees that such a hypothetical has nothing to do with the case we’re discussing (which is refreshing), but suggests that it is an appropriate situation for jury nullification.

I don’t know (I’ll pause while archivists bookmark those three words). But I still lean toward the idea that a society which permits trial by jury is better for it, and that the only way to maintain the system is for juries to be honest and uphold their end of the bargain to hear the evidence and apply the law to the case before them. Any other course would only hasten such a corrupt society’s slide down the slope toward authoritarianism.

49

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Jury nullification is a form of civil disobedience too.
[/QUOTE]
So was what the Founding Fathers did. If the laws are bad/unjust/wrong to begin with, civil disobedience is one option to speak out and to try to achieve change. Rebellion/war is another. None of us would be living in a free USA today if it hadn’t been for our Founding Father’s “disobedience” in the face of a tyrannical government.

50

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
So was what the Founding Fathers did.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. In fact, armed rebellion is pretty much the precise opposite of civil disobedience, as we use and understand that term.

51

I have no doubt that had this guy been found with “only 12 photos, and a movie in the freezer” of child porn “for his personal use only” everyone would be howling for his blood. :rolleyes:

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

52

[QUOTE=Hypno-Toad]
You can’t build up “credit” against future crime by being a good guy early on. (At least not in the legal system. The fact that we’re having this debate shows that you can do it culturally.)
[/QUOTE]

I think you can, actually. Judges certainly do take into account past criminal records when handing out sentences. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took into account general community standing as well. It’s certainly taken into account for determining bail. And we have something called the “character witness”. Then we have things like the “three strikes law” which mandates harsher sentencing for repeated smaller offenses. Then of course, there’s even more wiggle room for the jury than judges, who will often take into consideration factors that aren’t as strict, and can also commit jury nullification.

53

[QUOTE=mhendo]
What a completely pointless and misguided response. I never said that there was a necessary connection between different trials; i merely made the point that, in evaluating my own opinions about jury nullification, one of the things that weighs against it is precisely its subjectivity, the fact that it always seems like an honorable and noble thing to do when you disagree with the morality of a particular law, and seems like a case a thwarting justice when you agree with the law.
[/QUOTE]

I guess I misunderstood you then. It sounded like you were arguing against the idea of jury nullification, and arguing that somehow your abstention would affect the use of it by others. My point was, it’s currently a part of the system so you might as well use it, because you deciding not to use it isn’t going to magically stop anyone else from using it.

I guess I don’t understand your second point either - you could say the same thing about voting. Sure, it seems like an honorable and noble thing when someone votes for Obama when you agree with what he stands for, and seems like a case of unintelligent, ill-informed thwarting of common sense when someone chooses to vote for McCain instead. Voting is too subjective, therefore it’s more fair if you don’t vote at all. Any tool can be used for good or bad. It’s not the tool that’s bad, it’s the way it’s being used. Just because someone else uses their chainsaw to murder people doesn’t mean you should abstain from doing carpentry.

54

People here keep saying 12 plants and a pound, I just wanted to point out that it is actually 19 and 1 1/2 pounds. Won’t change anyones arguments I imagine, but I just wanted the facts accurate.

55

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
I guess I don’t understand your second point either - you could say the same thing about voting. Sure, it seems like an honorable and noble thing when someone votes for Obama when you agree with what he stands for, and seems like a case of unintelligent, ill-informed thwarting of common sense when someone chooses to vote for McCain instead. Voting is too subjective, therefore it’s more fair if you don’t vote at all.
[/QUOTE]
Extremely poor example.

The fundamental premise of voting is specifically to choose between competing candidates, like Obama and McCain for example.

The fundamental premise of the justice system, and of a jury trial, is to apply the existing law to the case at hand. Not doing that makes a mockery of the system itself, especially when it only takes a single person out of 12 to bring about a mistrial, and really doesn’t address the injustice of that law. As others have pointed out, using jury nullification to make “special cases” is probably less likely to effect the change you want, because it removes focus from the particular law and redirects it at the process of implementing the law.

I’m not denying that you can do it. I’m merely explaining why i don’t really think it’s the solution.

56

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
I think you can, actually. Judges certainly do take into account past criminal records when handing out sentences. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took into account general community standing as well. It’s certainly taken into account for determining bail. And we have something called the “character witness”. Then we have things like the “three strikes law” which mandates harsher sentencing for repeated smaller offenses. Then of course, there’s even more wiggle room for the jury than judges, who will often take into consideration factors that aren’t as strict, and can also commit jury nullification.
[/QUOTE]

Thus part about “Culturally.” And thanks for bringing up the “Three Strikes” laws. I’m a little leery of those because of the automatic nature they instill in the system.

57

[QUOTE=Hypno-Toad]
Thank you King. You’ve help me to articulate something that I’ve always felt but have never been able to properly state.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? Millions of people have articulated the “let the perfect be the enemy of the good” fallacy before, and millions will no doubt continue to articulate it in the future.

58

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Jury nullification can save individual defendants (usually, I think, to society’s detriment), but it can’t kill any law or institution except for trial by jury itself.
[/QUOTE]

The historical record of nullification throwing sand in the gears of censorship laws, fugitive-slave retrieval laws, alcohol prohibition, etc does not agree with your assertion.

You contradict yourself. If juries are supposed to robotically follow both anti-freedom and pro-freedom laws, the institution clearly cannot serve as any sort of support, much less the “cornerstone”, of freedom.

59

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
The historical record of nullification throwing sand in the gears of censorship laws, fugitive-slave retrieval laws, alcohol prohibition, etc does not agree with your assertion.
[/QUOTE]

'Twasn’t jury nullification that ended any of those things, as far as I can tell. You’re right that jury nullification can be used to protest unpopular laws, (or to express contempt for law in general, or to keep white people from being convicted of crimes in some places, or out of courtesy to the person who bribed them, or out of sheer cussedness, which is part of the problem) and in individual cases, temporarily frustrate the law. In the process, of course, it also nullifies civil disobedience, which is a much more powerful and ethical tool to deal with unjust laws, it delays complete and permanent changes in the legal system, and it’s a ham-handed technique that attacks the jury system and the judicial system itself much more effectively than it addresses individual laws.

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
You contradict yourself. If juries are supposed to robotically follow both anti-freedom and pro-freedom laws, the institution clearly cannot serve as any sort of support, much less the “cornerstone”, of freedom.
[/QUOTE]

Not if you can grow to accept definitions of “freedom” more limited than “the ability to get away with breaking any law I don’t like for any reason.” The power and the glory of the jury system is not license to ignore the facts and the law, it’s the power and responsibility to see that both the state and defendants adhere to them as well. Rejecting unjust laws is an important responsibility, but it belongs to all of us, and it has to be done correctly: it’s not a job within the scope of a jury, and the jury can’t attempt it without rejecting everything they are supposed to accomplish. If nullification were to become widespread, we’d have a race to see which, anarchy or tyranny or bloodletting, we’d get to first.

It’s not a matter of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s about accepting the imperfect to avoid the horrible extremes. If you feel a law is unjust, go protest it. Hell, go break it. And tell everybody you’re willing to accept the consequences because your cause is right, and watch a movement grow. But don’t destroy the jury system (which usually serves us well even if sometimes the cool people have to go to jail) because you’d rather take loud credit for personally setting one person free than anonymously do your part to preserve the oldest and most important democratic institution there is.

60

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
… None of us would be living in a free USA today if it hadn’t been for our Founding Father’s “disobedience” in the face of a tyrannical government.
[/QUOTE]

Right, you’d all be living under British tyranny, just like poor old Canada.