Jully Nullification

[em3rgentOrdr]

Just say no.  If you are a juror and the defendant is being charged with a law that you believe is unjust, then you can nullify it by voting not guilty regardless of whether the prosecution has proven its case.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/jury-nullification

Sorry, I would normally use facebook to post articles that I like, but I have been off facebook for 6+ months, and all most of my internet friends now exist on forum.bitcoin.org anyway.  But this is totally legit post for "Politics & Society".

So what are my fellow bitcoiners' thoughts on Jury Nullification?

[1713595193]

1713595193

[1713595193]

1713595193

[1713595193]

1713595193

[1713595193]

1713595193

[myrkul]

Probably the only reason I would report to Jury duty. (though, if they call, I'm doing something wrong)

[em3rgentOrdr]

Probably the only reason I would report to Jury duty. (though, if they call, I'm doing something wrong)

It would be miraculous if you even make it past the initial juror screening, especially with your anti-state beliefs!  I myself was called up for jury duty once, and went through the questioning by both defendants and prosecution, and then for some reason the judge told me I could go.  Then they sent me a little joke of a check for some trivial amount like $15 for wasting my morning time.

[lemonginger]

The guy that wrote/drew the recently memed "Go the Fuck To Sleep" book has a nice one on Jury Nullification

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/17192214925/artist-behind-go-fk-to-sleep-gives-away-free-illustrated-book-jury-nullification.shtml

Also has a fairly well done kids book talking about marijuana.

[JoelKatz]

However you feel about jury nullification, I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy about reverse jury nullification -- where the law contains a loophole, the jury agrees the accused falls into the loophole, but convicts him anyway because they think the loophole is stupid. (Not that there's anything inconsistent in this position. Just remember, many crimes have victims.)

Personally, I believe that in an ideal world, jury nullification would be a serious evil. However, our world has some massively screwed up laws, and refusing to enforce a bad law is a virtue.

[Arrow]

However you feel about jury nullification, I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy about reverse jury nullification -- where the law contains a loophole, the jury agrees the accused falls into the loophole, but convicts him anyway because the thing the loophole is stupid. (Not that there's anything inconsistent in this position. Just remember, many crimes have victims.)

Personally, I believe that in an ideal world, jury nullification would be a serious evil. However, our world has some massively screwed up laws, and refusing to enforce a bad law is a virtue.

If 1 of 12 jurors says "not guilty" then the defendant doesn't go to prison (unless they are retried and convicted).

If one of 12 jurors says "guilty" in this "reverse-jury-nullification" scenario the person still does not go to prison.

[TiagoTiago]

typo in the tittle

[casascius]

Probably the only reason I would report to Jury duty. (though, if they call, I'm doing something wrong)

It would be miraculous if you even make it past the initial juror screening, especially with your anti-state beliefs!  I myself was called up for jury duty once, and went through the questioning by both defendants and prosecution, and then for some reason the judge told me I could go.  Then they sent me a little joke of a check for some trivial amount like $15 for wasting my morning time.

Here is why you got sent home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#Use_in_the_United_States

Next time, try to blend in a little better (assuming of course getting bounced wasn't your goal in the first place)

[LehmanSister]

So what are my fellow bitcoiners' thoughts on Jury Nullification?

For the last 100 years or so, the following rules work well.

As a juror, never say you know what it is or you'll be expelled from the jury.
As an attorney, you may be expelled from the case for bringing it up.
As a defendant, mentioning it in court will really piss off the judge, and the jury will be instructed to ignore your statement.

Even when "REMEMBER JURY NULLIFICATION" stickers on placed on things and shown to juries, those will be edited out.

The effective method using Nullification would be to have an educated jury, sadly, you won't get one. Your best luck will be living in an area of well educated people with a low population.

[myrkul]

FIJA has had a lot of success passing out fliers in front of the courthouses.

[em3rgentOrdr]

typo in the tittle

Lol!  I just noticed that!  Looks tacky, but im keeping it.

[myrkul]

typo in the tittle

Lol!  I just noticed that!  Looks tacky, but im keeping it.

Engrish is a sign of Satoshi's favor... Right?

[em3rgentOrdr]

Probably the only reason I would report to Jury duty. (though, if they call, I'm doing something wrong)

It would be miraculous if you even make it past the initial juror screening, especially with your anti-state beliefs!  I myself was called up for jury duty once, and went through the questioning by both defendants and prosecution, and then for some reason the judge told me I could go.  Then they sent me a little joke of a check for some trivial amount like $15 for wasting my morning time.

Here is why you got sent home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#Use_in_the_United_States

Next time, try to blend in a little better (assuming of course getting bounced wasn't your goal in the first place)

well im pretty bad at lying, so oh well.

[Agozyen]

Seems like some people in authority don't like Jury Nullification...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110301/02345813309/guy-passing-out-pamphlets-front-court-indicted-jury-tampering.shtml


Personally, I think it's a great idea.

[J180]

I heard it was used a significant amount during alcohol prohibition. I'd like to see people do the same for non-violent drug charges.

[gopher]

I am not an American, I live in a country which does not use the system of Jury, so my view on this is theoretical.

But by watching what Hollywood produces (too much, I think) I am puzzled if the US Jury system is not implemented hypocritically, like so many other things in the US society.

I mean, does not it say that the Jury must be made of peers?

My understanding of peers is people equal by number of factors, but what I regularly see (admittedly, on the tv and cinema), the peers are vastly unequal to the person on trial, hence the perversion of the so called jury-by-peers system.

In that case, would not be more efficient for the accused's lawyer to reject all un-equal "peers" from the jury-list until a proper Jury is formed and then ask the jury of peers to show empathy (which is highly likely to happen atm)?

But then, there is the interesting possibility - imagine a psycho- and socio-pathic, religious-extremist teenage gangster-rapist, being tried by a jury made of people equal to him - same age, education, culture, religion, race, even living in same neighbourhood etc  - has to find that he did something wrong.

Do you think they would?

This one example makes me think - you Americans face very interesting challenges when it comes to rooting demagogy and hypocrisy from your world and still remaining comfy that the world you've created and live-in is civilised and free.

Hey, it does not stop you from repeating that chant on every cheap media there is again-and-again, but does that make it true?

Peace to all!

[Fakeman]

I heard it was used a significant amount during alcohol prohibition. I'd like to see people do the same for non-violent drug charges.

Do those tend to be tried by jury a lot? Honest question.

[myrkul]

I heard it was used a significant amount during alcohol prohibition. I'd like to see people do the same for non-violent drug charges.

Do those tend to be tried by jury a lot? Honest question.

Not really. The offender usually gets intimidated into admitting guilt or something stupid like a trial with just a judge.

[naturallaw]

Personally, I believe that in an ideal world, jury nullification would be a serious evil. However, our world has some massively screwed up laws, and refusing to enforce a bad law is a virtue.

Jury nullification is meant to protect people from "screwed up" laws, abusive laws, and these types of loopholes. I think it is meant to give an error-prone human component to it. I think jurors should be able to challenge the morals of a law. I think I agree with you on reverse jury-nullification though, this is like passing a retroactive law that throws people in jail.

[Babylon]

However you feel about jury nullification, I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy about reverse jury nullification -- where the law contains a loophole, the jury agrees the accused falls into the loophole, but convicts him anyway because the thing the loophole is stupid. (Not that there's anything inconsistent in this position. Just remember, many crimes have victims.)

Personally, I believe that in an ideal world, jury nullification would be a serious evil. However, our world has some massively screwed up laws, and refusing to enforce a bad law is a virtue.

As Arrow said, this is harder to do, also there are cases where people should NOT be falling through those loopholes, and i am glad that Juries can make sure those people are punished.

[Babylon]

I heard it was used a significant amount during alcohol prohibition. I'd like to see people do the same for non-violent drug charges.

Do those tend to be tried by jury a lot? Honest question.

no,  but non-violent drug offenders might be wise to take it to a jury more often.  Jury Nullification is actually fairly widely known, if not universally, and support for drug prohibition is less than half the population in many parts of the country.