Jury nullification.

[beevul]

I have never seen it discussed on DU before.

Is jury nullification a good thing or a bad thing?

Do jurors have that power?

Should judges be required to explain it in court if they do?

Should jurors have that power?


http://www.fija.org/

Welcome

Welcome to the official web site of the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA). The AJI/FIJA mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. AJI/FIJA also seeks to restore the political function of the jury as the final check and balance on our American system of government.

AJI/FIJA accepts no government funding. AJI/FIJA programs and publications are possible because of generous contributions received from individuals, foundations, and corporations, and other revenue generated from the sale of AJI/FIJA publications and materials. AJI/FIJA is a public policy nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Discuss. If this doesn't turn flamefest, it will be a nice break from gun topics.

[ret5hd]

1. 1. It has been discussed on DU before...

(fact)...just not very often
2. jury nullification is a good thing (fact)
3. jurors have that power (fact, and opinion of S.C.)
4. judges should be required to explain it in court (opinion)
5. jurors should have that power (opinion of S.C.)

2. jury nullification gives the power to people to refuse to enforce unjust laws.

3. much like prayer in school, how ya' gonna stop 'em?

4. supreme court says no, but i disagree (big deal, huh?)

5. supreme court thinks so, and i agree, but again, how ya' gonna stop 'em?

[milliner]

2. I cant see the risk

as a sitting jurist convincing the rest of the room that I think the law is wrong and either convict or acquit on the facts and not the law.

My earlier post concerned the risk of telling the judge to take a leap, its none of their business.

I think JN is a good thing, the problem is that a lot of judges will throw an attorney in jail if they would present JN in closing arguments.

Quite reasonably so, the court system is scared to death the citizens might actually usurp the power they have carved out for themselves to set and enforce their own morality.

It was JN that appealed prohibition. Juries quit convicting people for breaking the law and the govt had no option but to stop trying to prosecute cases that citizens refused to take serious. I think that in fact if everyone knew that as a jurist you could refuse to convict for, say, pot use, and enough of that happened it would be a clear signal that the govt is going to take a serious look at rewriting the laws

[RoeBear]

3. For example if I were on...

..this guy's jury: http://www.nbc5.com/news/2753978/detail.html

I would do my best to inform the other jurors that he had his right to self defense denied by the town.

[DoNotRefill]

4. Jury nullification is a double edged sword.

It's excellent in cases where the law truly sucks, like drug cases.

It's very bad when the law is just, but community standards are unjust, like the Klansmen who were found not guilty by an all-white jury despite the fact that they really did kill and terrorize minorities.

Personally, I think that nullification instructions should be given to jurors. I realize that some people will use it to get out of bad things that they deserve to be punished for, but better 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be in jail.

[oscarmitre]

5. I was a supporter of Blackstone's reference to

the "pious perjury" of the jury in not convicting when it as clearly unjust to do so (he was discussing a particular English case where the jury found against the facts so as the defendant got transportation rather than hanging) but your comment concerning the Klansmen really causes me to rethink my ideas. Yes, community standards can be unjust and innocent people can suffer from it.

Oh well back to my normal state of confusion about these issues.

[RoeBear]

6. Are guns the only thing...

...people are willing to discuss here? Come on, I want to hear your opinions.

[TexasMexican]

7. I support it.

If I were ever on a jury I definately wouldnt convict someone for buying, selling, or using marijuana.

I might still on other drug charges, but I feel it really all depends on the case.

[RoeBear]

9. What if it was...

...a ton of MJ? Just curious if there is a line that could be crossed.

[TexasMexican]

10. nah I still wouldnt convict.

For marijuana I dont think it really matters how much someone has.

[beevul]

8. I also support it.

I am of an open mind on arguments against however.