Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows’ attorney.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      At a systemic level, its validity is kind of irrelevant because any time you ask a human being to judge whether a law is broken, there’s no way to prevent them from saying no because they don’t agree with the law. Prosecutors and judges can try to weed out jurors who will answer based on their conscience rather than just facts, but they can’t eliminate the possibility.

      On a personal level, I can recognize nullification is easy to abuse, but if I’m on a jury and I’m asked to convict someone of breaking an unjust law, I could not in good conscience sacrifice that person’s freedom just because another juror in a different trial could do the same thing for bad reasons.

      As the question of whether nullification should be promoted, I think it should, because people have a right to know how their government works as part of their right to choose how it works. A government whose most fundamental mechanisms can’t hold up to public security is ipso facto authoritarian and undemocratic.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 months ago

      The validity isn’t debatable. Just it’s checkered history. Ending jury nullification would require making the jury an advisory body or getting rid of it altogether. And considering it’s entire purpose is to be the last check on the justice system, that’s not happening any time soon.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, dude. It’s popular on the Internet. Talk to real lawyers about it. When I’ve come across it with them, they rate it barely higher than SovCit nonsense.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Here’s the ACLU on it. Let me know when they’re willing to defend Sovereign Citizens.

          Here’s Cornell Law School on it, and their operative quote.

          This can occur because a not guilty verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts.

          So please tell me how this is a conspiracy theory with no legal force?

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean sure, if “a jury of your peers” means at least seven other racist fucks, then it could very well go badly.

      But it keeps the laws of the land on the same page as the opinions of the people. Jury nullification is as close to democracy as you can hope for.

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

      -William Blackstone

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I’ll bite:
          First of all can we acknowledge that every system is going to be flawed? You’re either going to have innocent people convicted and sent to jail, or guilty people set free. Likely you’ll have some of both.

          With that in mind, what do you consider an acceptable ratio of innocent people convicted in order to make sure guilty people are also convicted? As many as it takes?

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The claim I’m making is that systemic flaws are unavoidable and therefore Blackstone’s formulation is a pile of horseshit.

            It literally doesn’t even matter what system I think would be better. I claimed that societies can’t function under Blackstone’s formulation and our present circumstances prove that point handily.

            Just because you are happy with it doesn’t mean it’s good or that other people should just accept it.

            • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              You’re not really making a point, you’re making a claim. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you haven’t really said any reason why you think society can’t function when they value protecting the rights of the innocent over guaranteeing 100% of the guilty are punished.

              When you say “our present circumstances prove that point”, are you saying that all of society’s problems can be linked to jury nullification? Or to the fact your jurisdiction is too light handed with criminals, or felons, or both? It’s a very bold, very vague claim, considering it’s well studied that rehabilitative/educational and not punitive measures are more effective at reducing crime, so making the current system more heavy handed doesn’t seem to be the answer, if one exists.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Yeah, people make claims in debate, not points.

                I don’t list reasons because it’s self-evident and very blatantly obvious why. Go to the news subs on any Lemmy server and you’ll see why.

                You’re just angry I am not giving you the fight that you want because you saw me saying something that opposes your little political agenda, and so you came here to proselytize.

                Literally no one said anything about punishment at all but here you are, peddling your enabling crap, just like I knew one of you would. You’re here proselytizing, like a Jehovah’s Witness.

                Well, I’m not playing along. I said societies can’t function under Blackstone’s formulation and my stance is not gonna change because you don’t like it. You can’t bully me into submitting to your dogmatic cult bullshit.

                • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Dogmatic cult bullshit? A fight? Do you realise I’m not the original person you replied to? I’m not proselytising, I just want to know what your stance is because I’m curious. People don’t make claims in debates, you’re meant to use facts to support a point of view and identify gaps in opposing arguments.

                  I’m also not really here to change your stance. I don’t have a political agenda, I have an opinion, and I asked genuine questions out of a desire to have that opinion challenged and maybe reconsider my own point of view. You don’t need to “play along”, you chose to post on a discussion forum and should expect to have your post discussed.

                  The reason I brought up punishment is because it’s super relevant to the idea of innocence and guilt in the world most of us live in today - one where guilt is punished. I’m not some Blackstone worshipper, I know literally nothing about them as a historical figure and couldn’t have attributed the quote before today.

                  I’m sorry if you’re having a bad day, or if the way I’ve said what I wanted to say came across as aggressive or insincere, I was intending to ask legitimate questions and maybe, in this corner of the internet, a handful of people could have walked away with a better understanding of others.

                  Also, I appreciate that you’ve since edited your original comment to say “claim”. It would’ve been good if you’d admitted to your mistake, instead of assuming I was out to get you.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      LOL amazingly a jury can decide how they want and that’s the end of it. the fact that someone may not like it is immaterial.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Uhh, no. That’s not how it works.:

        According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sparf v. U.S., written by Justice Harlan, juries have no right to ignore the law when rendering the jury’s verdict. However, nullification still occurs in some instances because of the secrecy of jury deliberations. It is difficult to determine if a jury negates the law, especially in close cases.

        If it was up to judges, it would never be allowed, and cases would go to appeal or retrial if it happens. It only continues because jury deliberations are private. If judges found out, they would toss it.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You’ve just proven that the SCOTUS decision is fully unenforceable, which means that jury nullification is the de facto law of the land.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s not. People blab about it a lot. Often right during jury selection, which makes it easy.

            • stoly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That’s the one time they will get you. The other is like in the Darryl Brooks trial where he tried to bring it up repeatedly and was shut down instantly by the judge.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                People blab all the time when they think they’re on to something smart. It’s surprisingly reliable.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Very well. Please show the part of the federal criminal code that allows a juror to be prosecuted for thought crime. I will wait.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, is this the same SCOTUS that says women have to die if their pregnancy fucks up?

          We should probably stop letting judges make laws. They don’t run this place, we do.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s been precedent for a long time. Also, if you want to confront the legitimately of the court system altogether, then jury nullification is meaningless.

    • Fudoshin ️🏳️‍🌈@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s called Perverse Jury in the UK and it’s always caused major shocks when it’s happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#England_and_Wales

      Judges don’t like it and politicians have considered making it illegal. It’s been really heating up recently (2021 & 2023) with environmental protestors being acquitted after juries refused to find them guilty.

      Judges have tried to avoid it in those cases by blocking the defendent from explaining their moral argument. People were acquitted of the crime but then convicted of contempt of court for breaching the judges orders.