Jury nullification: a decision by a jury that disregards the judge’s instructions and the facts of the case.
Originally I was going to write about my own experiences with jury duty, but after yesterday’s post I think we ought to ask,
If the President of the United States can decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore, why can’t the citizens do it too?
It seems to me we’re on a slippery slope.
February 18, 2014
“It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.
That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”
If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”
~ Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
😀
“…and which to ignore, why can’t the citizens do it too?”
Some do — after they get out, they’re known as ex-cons (among other things).
So far as jury nullification, when done right, they’re not ignoring the law, they’re judging the law and how it’s being applied in the case they are assigned to along with the defendant. With the fugitive slave trials before the civil war, I think almost everyone today would agree that jury nullification was appropriate an just. On the other hand, jury nullification in the south, where juries acquitted whites of crimes against blacks, were travesties of justice.
Yes, I think the video did a great job talking about the anti-negro prejudice in the South and the Fugitive Slave Law. Those are great examples.
My main point is Obama isn’t being a good example since America often pontificates about the “rule of law.”
I was on a jury once. A hung jury until I got hungry & voted Guilty with the rest. Several teens got in trouble & one was singled out to be tried. He was guilty but I didn’t think it was fair.
From: Juliette Denkin
You may not have known all the facts as to why only one was being tried, such as if he had prior record (which may not be admissible). So generally not a good idea to go by question of ‘fairness’ because the jurors may not have all the relevant info. Juries are charged with determining the ‘what happened’ with legal calls for the judge.
From: Juliette Denkin –a NYC lawyer we know from a China trip.
Most recently displayed in infamous Florida murder trials (stand your ground defense claimed). And why voir dire jury selection process is so important, to get disinterested, not necessarily sympathetic juries. Lots of instances historically in lynchings, also with racial & gender bias crimes. Generally a practice not to be encouraged, and more likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice than a ‘just’ verdict.
“Generally a practice not to be encouraged….” Does that apply to Obama too?