And whether or not the law is just - the point of jury nullification.
Juries are not supposed to make determinations of whether certain laws are just or not. They are supposed to determine innocence or guilt based upon the laws that are enacted. If a juror takes to interpreting whether certain laws are just or not, then they are not fulfilling their requirement of a juror. If someone has the passion to re-interpret laws they should run for legislative office or campaign for others that support their points of view…not serve on juries.
Says who?
See post #40.
Given that jurors can and have had the power to nullify laws through guilty/innocent verdicts already, I see that fear of wrongheaded activism as overblown. The frequency in which such things have happened has certainly decreases over the years, especially now that racism isn’t as permissible as it was in the past. Generally, people make pretty fair decisions, why assume they won’t continue to get more fair?
I agree that laws aren’t completely alien, but neither can one law account for all circumstances, which is what zero tolerance or mandatory sentencing laws do. Those laws may exist because the majority of people want them to, however, the majority of people don’t have to face the consequences of it. That disconnect and distant proximity to the case gives them a more casual attitude towards a specific defendant’s life moreso than one juror among 12 sitting in the courtroom and hearing the circumstances of a person’s actions.
And if a sentence really is so fair and good, why would it require so much convincing, to the point of forced ignorance, for people to agree to implementing it? It’s hard to convince me by saying “This rule is fair, but you can’t know about it before you convict a man, because you might not think it’s so fair”
Seems to me that if that’s so good and fair, there should be a law against it :dubious:
Exactly. The folks who write insane mandatory sentencing laws also write laws telling juries that they have to ignore those insane laws when pronouncing judgment, so it’s all good.
Conversely, I see claims of unconscionable sentences overblown as well.
Racism is alive and well, if not as overt as in the past. I don’t trust people to be perfectly objective, sorry. Thus, I find some comfort in a bright line rule that applies regardless of skin color or socioeconomic status.
But I would argue the opposite holds true too. The juror sitting in the courtroom doesn’t think about the broad implications of his/her actions. They are too sympathetic to the guy facing jail today for a third strike charge while thinking nothing of the people who have been hurt (and perhaps will be) hurt in the future. There’s a public policy goal behind zero tolerance and strict liability.
I beg to differ. Juries are the last bastion of the citizenry against an overweening state.
And you would still be wrong.
Not just racism, but also sexism, classism, and other just general prejudices. Problems like that already exist (“oh, she seems like such a sweet lady. She reminds me of Mrs. Brady. She couldn’t possibly be guilty.” vs. the young, angry looking punk kid who in the jury’s mind is probably guilty of something.) telling jurors about sentencing will exacerbate those problems. (“She did it, but 3 years, that’s too much for someone like her” for a crime for which the same jury would gladly put a different defendant away for 10 years.) It would introduce more capriciousness and unfairness into the system and move us away from rule of laws and closer to a rule of men.
Anyone who follows the law before their morality is inherently an immoral person, by definition. I don’t want immoral people deciding my fate, so why would I be immoral deciding someone else’s fate?
And, yes, it is immoral to follow the law in this case. You are voting to intentionally hurt someone. If you don’t know if the hurt is balanced by the good of society, then you are risking hurting someone unfairly.
If I voted for something that got someone the death penalty, and I didn’t think they’d deserve it. I’d be committing murder. Just like a lawyer who knows their client is guilty is responsible for any hurt that person performs.
Anything else is just smoke and mirrors to try and justify an immoral action.
Preemptory challenge is the tool most commonly used to keep potential jurors like BigT and others off of juries and avoid jury nullification.
How is he wrong? That’s been pretty much the role of the jury for the past three centuries in the UK, at least. There’s a reason they stopped handing out the death penalty for cattle rustling or stealing a loaf of bread in England, and that’s because juries refused to convict if they knew the accused was going to be sent to the gallows. Juries weighing the penalty against the severity of the crime has happened since time immemorial.
Thankfully, threads like this raise awareness of this practice. We all know now to look out for questions attempting to discover potential jurors who’d balk at sending a defendent to prison for ten years for stealing a tennis ball.
There are better ways to go about attempting to change unjust laws than disregarding jury instructions. :rolleyes:
With perhaps less relevance to the defendent in the trial at hand :rolleyes:
Would you rather try to change the system or save one person at a time that your lucky enough to get on their jury? Big Picture vs. Little Picture.
Also your opinion of what is “just” may be different than the majority.
Does one preclude the other?
The sword cuts both ways. There may be criminal statutes that you believe are just and NEED to be on the books. And some yayhoo jury decides to interpret justice in their own way.
Take for example the trial of Scott Roeder, who murdered the abortionist Dr. Tiller in Kansas. What if the jury in his case were all staunch right to lifers that thought any abortion was criminal, and thus acquitted Roeder of the murder of Dr. Tiller, not based upon the facts of the case, but that he was defending the lives of the unborn. That would have been a miscarriage of justice if that were to happen. But it is that type of jury activism that you promote.