You may wish to support your assertion if you want it to have any weight.
“He” is correct. 
I do not agree with the slippery slope in this case - the possibility of jury nullification has been part of jury trials for a long time; indeed, the possible cussedness of juries is part of the point of having juries (rather than trial by judge alone).
Judges would be far, far more likely to simply apply the letter of the law. Having a jury adds crutial public input into the process; why else have persons untrained in the legal method be forced to sit through - and make findings of fact in - a trial?
The notion, I believe, is that without regular public input, the law can as it were go off the rails - get out of sync with the public mood; and the political process is ill equipped to deal with such changes. In a common law system, trials can act as “test cases” for legal principles, and courts and juries (and the political process) play a role in bringing about legal change (in Canada the lead example is the trial of Dr. Morgenthaler (sp?), tried for the archaic crime of “procuring a miscarriage”, which led via jury nullification to a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing abortion in this country; the political powers that be then singularly failed to introduce abortion laws, effectively legalizing abortion). Dr. Morgenthaler was recently awarded the Order of Canada …
Anyway, back to the example - many people here in this thread and elsewhere want to use jury nullification in the case of a “nice” drug grower to highlight or trigger change in the drug laws. The problem with this theory is that, while there is a growing public sentiment in favour of decriminalization, it is still a minority view (one I happen to share, but that is irrelevant for this analysis). The use of jury nullification would, in short, be used as a weapon not to further popular change and the popular will, but by a minority to frustrate the will of the majority. This is not a good use of the system, as what is likely to happen is spotty enforcement rather than an overturning of the laws in a “test case”.
Spotty enforcement is of course the downside of jury nullification; it is the price the system pays for involving juries. So far, I would argue it is a price worth paying; as with so many things in our justice system, there exists instances of injustice, but overall no better system of delivery justice has so far been created.
Right where it starts and ends.
He knew that growing the gange was against the law of the land. He gambled and lost. While I think the entire drug war is an exercise in futility, he cannot and should not be treated any differently than a street level mutt slingin his wares.
Not in terms of his guilt or innocence. The law has always taken the personal circumstances of the accused into account in sentencing. Mind you, I do not know how it works under the US sentencing guidelines, but I’d be very surprised if an otherwise blameless elderly professor type would get the same sentence for the same offence as a street level dealer “known to the police” as the saying goes.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Heh. If they seized every farm in Oregon’s Willamette Valley that had 'shrooms growing on it, they DEA would be the largest landowner in the state. In late fall, there are few pastures that don’t sprout Psilocybe semilenceata . It would be like busting everyone found with currency bearing traces of cocaine.
It seems to me that jury nullification would be *more *useful in the case of the inner city drug kingpin, now that I think on it. That would bring attention to an unjust law in a way that can’t be explained away as “well, he didn’t deserve to be punished 'cause he’s a good guy.”
In other words, if the rich white guy gets nullification, it’s because of who he is and there’s no incentive to change the law - we can always count on someone to nullify for the worthy. If a low-life scum gets it, it’s because the law is wrong and we should change the law.
(That’s probably what y’all have already said, but I’m getting a little lost, so forgive me.)
Who says it is too much to be personal use. ? Most weed lovers have smoked more than a few thousand joins by the age of 62. It could well be personal and family provisions.
Malthus, I’ve been discourteous: hello, and good to meet you, and, I’ve gotta say, what a pleasure it is to discourse with someone who is willing to express all his (very worthwhile) thoughts, even those which are ambiguous or even express doubt about his point of view. It inspires me to try for the same kind of honesty myself. I’m confident that you’ll help me. If I ever used smilies I would have put one in place of this sentence. A friendly one.
Aha! One for me! Accept my best regards and wishes, sir.
What a strange thing for someone with your username to ever say! Nonetheless, nine times out of ten, slippery slope is a really stupid argument, and you’re right to be leery of it. But the actuality, not the possibility, of jury nullification is what makes headlines, and it’s rare and even then the meaning (compared to what I’ll call genuine civil disobedience) is often a mystery: did the jury violate its oath because the law is unjust, or because the defendent was very like them, or because too much information was withheld, or because they were stupid, or because they were tricked, or because they wish to protest some other law, or all laws, or, just maybe, did the facts and law actually support the verdict? Let’s think about this last possibility: the whole point of jury nullification is thwarted if most people assume the panel is not stupid or corrupt. That alone should make you pause, shouldn’t it? If they assume that it is, what’s the breakdown on how many will assume that a dozen stupid and corrupt people are screwing up a trial for a noble and worthwhile purpose? You may as well try to convince them that you would have given the purse you were caught stealing to the United Way if you hadn’t been caught. That in a nutshell is why civil disobedience belongs to the public at large, willing to break the law and go to prison, because only personal sacrifice stirs the conscience. Renegade jurors with uncertain motives aren’t rebels, they’re just (word not appropriate for Great Debates)s. And their example leads people to distrust jurors, not legislators.
So I still say that jury nullification not only blunts the impact of genuine civil disobedience, it undermines institutions that make any dissent possible.
I would add that successful nullification would delay the middle class’ (who make up juries) entrance into the popular movement for changing the law – which is the goal, right? Not just to have it enforced selectively on someone else? – 'cause if that’s the goal, then jury nullification is the way to get there.
And here, I think, we have to leave it. You think the jury system will be destroyed if nullification is not an option. I think it will be destroyed long before nullification has been employed enough to achieve the effect of genuine civil disobedience, and that an honest jury system, even one enforcing unpopular laws, has to be a constant feature of democracy or else we risk losing it forever, after which the law-givers have nothing, nothing at all, to fear.
With that, I’m bowing out: the thread got moved and I’m not smart enough for Great Debates. But though neither of us has, apparently, convinced nor confounded the other, I think I understand the arguments better than when I began, and for that I thank you.