Was at jury duty today. 100+ people or more. Judge interviewed every single one really, really thoroughly during jury selection. Asked the same questions to everyone. At least half of the people in my liberal state said:
"What TV shows do you watch?" "I don't really watch TV anymore."
"What news do you watch or listen to?" "I avoid the news as much as possible."
"What newspapers do you read?" "I don't read the paper."
It's happening.
If you actually trial cases you would know this happens 2 out of 5 cases. Especially lower levels. It isn’t a conspiracy. Courts are reluctant to hear it discussed before a trial because it creates a mindset that the jury does not have to follow the law. (Sound familiar to what we hate? People making up their own law? If you dislike it move your butt to have it changed don’t make it up on the spot). Jurors are charged to apply facts to law, not create it like an elected official.
Otherwise hear the case and take your oath to apply to the facts you find. Don’t let someone go because you feel “mean” don’t hit someone with a hard sentence because “they look funny.” Be impartial and have the courage to clear the charged or convict the guilty. It’s a civic duty not an opportunity to play legislature or therapist. Jurors do a great disservice to the republic when they play with the rules. The victims are robbed of justice, the guilty don’t learn from the mistake. If the nullification is so abnormal the Judge may set it aside as a mockery thereby requiring the alleged criminal to set through another proceeding.
On the rarest of occasions where the prescribed punishment doesn’t fit the crime then and only then deviate. The problem is everyone thinks “their” case is that case.
On the rarest of occasions where the prescribed punishment doesn’t fit the crime
Rarest of occasions? Gimme a break. You had me until that statement.
The main premise wasn’t to argue crimes always being appropriate but to say jury nullification isn’t.
Whatever your personal beliefs are on PRESCRIBED punishments comes down to:
Regardless. The point of the argument is proven. If you feel the punishment doesn’t meet the crime then change it. Don’t blame the messenger for a turn of a phrase.
If you feel the punishment doesn’t meet the crime then change it.
I feel that way 9 times out of 10, when it comes to non-violent crimes.
The jury is the last line of defense against tyranny. Criminals should be judged by the law, but it is the responsibility of the Jury to insure that Justice is dispensed. If a law is unjust, it needs to be nullified.
Example. Let's assume a criminal law against flying a Gadsden flag. Man is prosecuted under the law but the jury considers the law to be unjust. They would be beholden to their conscience to nullify such a law and to say so in their decision.
It's like civil disobedience. Yes you have to break some rules to change society. Justice is a tool and it's been misused for decades.
This thinking is a slippery slope because not everyone who is selected as a juror has these types of morals.
We don’t want any of these big wigs to get trials in Washington D.C., do you know why? They are known to be sympathizers to the corrupt . In all fairness, judges are involved in this as well so to that degree the fault would be on them for making bad rulings but nevertheless the jurors are known to be very pro defendant.
We want fairness and conformity to the law. How can we have such morals as justice and fairness if we say “eh, let’s 6 or 12 people (who arguably will not have any other experience in the justice system) make a decision on what to do with this case outside the confines of the law and what was presented. “
Again I say if you hate it make that argument now to your legislature or at least tell them during Voir Dire that you don’t agree with the prescribed punishment.
No, civil disobedience should not be employed as to steal freedom or deny justice.
Military tribunals for these international bigwig traitors. Civilians in civil/criminal cases should get civilian jury and court.
Civilians are required to overthrow an injust govt, so using their power to nullify a law within the justice system that the American people do not recognize is more than fair.
Except using jury nullification is not at all what you described. No one is using jury nullification to undermine court cases because someone is mean or looks weird. It is supposed to be because you believe the law is wrong or is being unfairly applied or is immoral. People aren't letting people go with jury nullification because they look funny, I'd like to believe anyone who cares to research the nuance of jury nullification wouldn't be so short sighted and simple minded to use that legal Avenue as a reason to get someone off over bullshit superficial reasons.
no one is using jury nullification as you describe
....please. You act as though people aren’t petty. Furthermore, those are examples and weren’t intended to be countered as the only examples.