If I am on a jury and it's about a doctor providing abortions because abortion is banned...

[ck4829]

You know how I am going to vote. How you should vote if you are in the same position.

Jury nullification, baby.

[tymorial]

1. I firmly believe that a jurors responsibility is to determine guilt based upon the law

I am certainly disgusted by these abortion laws and I do believe they are completely unconstitutional. However, the role of a juror is quite clear.

[ck4829]

3. And that kind of rhetoric is the byproduct of a privileged era that no longer exists

A relict if you will.

Some people here say lives are at stake here, I agree with them, if that’s the case, then it’s time to stop playing fair, time to fight dirty.

You’re more than welcome to follow or get out of the way, but I think some of us are willing to embrace the ‘other side’.

[tymorial]

8. Okay then. I see that you are all in for anarchy. That's cool

You go with that. I am just going to...

[fishwax]

18. there's a huge ocean of potential space between refusing to convict on an unjust law and anarchy

Juries refusing to enforce unethical laws has a long history in this country, going back well before the Revolution. Forty five years before the bill of rights, the acquittal of John Peter Zenger for the crime of criticizing the colonial governor of New York was a flashpoint in the movement to protect the freedom of the press.

[Bradical79]

44. Jury nullification has had an important role in U.S. history

It's also perfectly legal. Been used to nullify unjust British laws prior to the revolution, to protect runaway slaves, and to help end prohibition, for example.

[Mariana]

29. Well, there you go.

If you refuse to convict someone because you don't think what he did should be a crime, then you're "all in for anarchy". Isn't that nice to know?

[Bradical79]

45. It has been legally employed for centuries without anarchy

Not sure why it would be any different now.

[TeamPooka]

11. So in 1860 you would be sending escaped slaves back to their owners down south? Laws are laws

and jurors back then had to make that call too.

[ck4829]

35. Asked it better than I could

[TroubleMan]

12. Jury Nullification is a very important legal tool for the juror.

Yes, the role of a juror is clear, and jury nullification is part of that role.

[jberryhill]

14. There is a reason why we have citizen jurors

Do you think 12 people chosen off the street st random are better at determining how the facts fit the law better than, say, an expert panel?

No, they aren’t. The ability to say, “Heck no” is part of what makes a jury of peers part of the anti-tyranny mechanism.

[rzemanfl]

34. I normally don't reply on this

tiny device. Had to compliment your excellent post. Well done.

[backscatter712]

22. A juror can also judge the law as well as the defendant.

When you judge the law itself to be unconstitutional or unjust, then it's your prerogative to vote to nullify.

Juries were put in place to be a check against unjust government.

[SCVDem]

33. Are you shitting me?!

They appoint kangaroo court judges for life.

This is our last line for a Democratic rule of law.

So I ask you politely to pound sand!

Thank you!

[3Hotdogs]

46. If the law and its basis is immoral, fuck the role of the juror.

[Hoyt]

2. I'm with you. Juries consider extenuating/mitigating circumstances all the time. nt

[StarfishSaver]

20. True. But they do that after days here all the evidence with an open mind

They're not supposed to go in deciding before we didn't hear any evidence but they're going to reject it.

If you feel that you can't convict someone of the crime under any circumstances, you shouldn't serve on the jury.

[Kaiserguy]

37. I once felt that way to

No longer. Today we have Judges being appointed to the bench who bring to the table preconceived ideas about how they are going to rule and nothing is done about it. One only has to look at who and what the Federalist Society recommends to the Republican party as judges. They are working hard to pack our courts in order to gain and keep power to benefit big business and the wealthy. This is especially wrong when it comes to the Supreme Court yet they do it and get away with it. So if I can help to stop there BS by hanging a jury than I will do so. The kind of laws that they enact for their kangaroo courts to enforce are laws that harm people and benefit the 1%. I did not start this war on the American workers, Women, Minority's, People of different religious beliefs, Immigrants, etc They did. Putting an end to their greed and hate is something that must be done

[Tech]

4. I would not get past jury selection

[mitch96]

24. +1 the "voir dire". The lawyer would you have an unbiased vote... nt

[barbtries]

5. i don't think the law will survive long enough to put it to the test.

but then i thought Hillary would win.

[brewens]

6. I just got a jury summons for June. One thing that occured to me is that there is no

such thing as perjury anymore. How can there be? If administration officials and people in confirmation hearings can lie to Congress and just revise their remarks with no penalty, how can we penalize an average citizen for lying to us in a district court? In the unlikely evet that happens, I have to insist he or she gets a do over.

[StarfishSaver]

16. People have been getting away with perjury for centuries. It doesn't mean that perjury doesn't exist

Or that you can't or won't be charged with and convicted of it

[brewens]

26. Yeah. But I will be bringing that up if it were to happen. n/t

[Soph0571]

7. They don't respect human rights...

.... I don't need to respect this fucking stupid law.

And that is from someone who was a lawyer before I decided life was to short

[StarfishSaver]

17. Okay. But

Now how do we tell you apart from them?

[Soph0571]

19. Cause i'm Better

You raise a valid point of course, if you undermine the law you undermine democracy. But at this moment in time how do we determine democracy?

[StarfishSaver]

21. That's a difficult question. But we definitely don't determine or protect it by becoming what we

loathe, no matter how justified we think we may be. Because they think they are justified, too.

[Soph0571]

23. Stop being all logical dammit!

Of course you are right and I spend my life protecting democratic principles... but just sometimes I wish we could be more like those arseholes that don't give a shit. Sorry, but Brexit right now on top of the nasty coming out of the South.... You cannot protect democracy by ignoring democratic principles. But dammit.

[StarfishSaver]

39. I know, baby

I know...

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Well, it's not happening around here but I'm with you.

[California_Republic]

10. They will ask in advance if you can decide with in the rules

Else you won’t be seated

[HAB911]

13. Jury nullification

is your civic duty

[StarfishSaver]

15. Strongly recommend against that

The only way you could make it onto the jury would be, Perjury, Baby

[lark]

25. I'd vote against holding him responsible, no matter what.

I my be an old white woman, but I was a teenager & young adult during the Viet Nam war period and was spat on and cursed at for daring to march against the war and vilified for speaking up against it. I saw the law as broken and vile when National Guardsmen fired live bullets at unarmed students and killed them with no repercussions at all, not even for the asses that ordered the murder.

I'd definitely vote that he is not guilty and be gleeful inside while doing it.

[saidsimplesimon]

31. Roe v Wade is the law on the books

The current make up of SCOTUS is good cause to be concerned. It could be overturned.

Most Republican women are not operating in their own best interests. They have their noses to far up their neighbor's business, with their posteriors showing and their minds wrapped in biblical myths. imo

[saidsimplesimon]

27. Jurors face a challenge

when there is a jury trial. A defense lawyer or prosecutor can question potential jurors in my state.

examples: Have you read about this via any media? Have you formed an opinion on... etc.

[Xipe Totec]

28. I think prudence dictates you say no more on this topic till after the trial.

Anything you say on this board is subject to discovery. So, it is best for you to delete the post as soon as possible.

Once the trial concludes then you can say whatever you want to say.

[a la izquierda]

38. The key word was "if." It's a hypothetical situation. nt

[Xipe Totec]

41. Then, hypothetically, don't post this.

Because, even if you're not in a jury right now, under those circumstances, you may be someday. And if you are, this is still relevant to discovery.

Anything you have ever said before and up until you're actually seated in a jury will still be subject to discovery.

[a la izquierda]

42. Fair point.

I am going to take a guess that the OP does not care in the slightest.

[yaesu]

30. and yes, normally, we are duty bound to follow the rules, but, in a fascist society all bets are off

I would lie my ass off to get on that jury & do everything I could to help the women or the doctor.

[proud patriot]

32. the prosecution

would flush you out during selection IMO

[rainin]

36. My husband recently served on a jury.

He felt sorry for the plantiff and wished he could vote in his favor. His case was against an insurance company refusing to pay out benefits. The law was on the side of the company. The contract wording was clear. It wasn't right or fair, but the decision had to be based on the law which was clear.

The doctor would be convicted in a court if he broke the law. He would have to be ok with going to prison.

[ooky]

40. I wouldn't make it onto that jury because I

would tell the court I can't enforce any law I don't believe is constitutional.

Personally I can see courts having a lot of trouble seating 12 people to enforce this bullshit law.

[TheBlackAdder]

43. If people base on religion, remind them there is nothing in the Bible that supports that position.

.

It's life at first breath, or a fine. No eye for an eye. There is one set of verses that affirms abortion.

No God knows the name stuff, as God kills pregnant women and children, allows miscarriages, and who is to say thatGOd's plan was for that fetus to end in an abortion. These positions are to solidify congregants, fleece them for money and volunteer labor for the church.

.

[NotASurfer]

47. If the doctor contests the law and counsel argues it's unconstitutional

Well of course you vote not guilty

Harder if doctor pleads guilty and insists on jail as a form of civil disobedience