I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.
Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?
That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.
This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.
You’re the one saying a moral argument is “unrealistic”.
Can you clarify what you’re actually saying?
If you’re trying to imply that a more moral person would see things your way, I couldn’t care less. It’s a pretty meaningless assertion.
You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.
That’s simply not how laws are intended to be applied. Democratically elected representatives debate moral considerations when designing laws. If you want criminal law to include an exemption for murderers of CEOs that you don’t like, you should write to your local rep I guess.
In the mean time, jurors will just have to apply the law as it stands.
This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.
“We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.
The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.
Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.
While a judge can be legally obligated to issue a ruling inconsistent with his own moral code, a jury is NEVER obligated to return a verdict they believe to be unjust.
As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just made up poppycock that sounds nice.
I’m sure that wherever that’s written down in the “rules” it also says all good dogs go to heaven right?
Anyhow, as we seem to have exhausted your repertoire of made up constitutional wisdom I think I’ll leave you to continue reassuring yourself that the founding fathers invented jury nullification and wanted Luigi to walk free.
While I look forward to reading your final parting dispensation of mythical wondery, I will not reply.
What does the phrase “We The People” mean, as used in the preamble of the constitution?
This is basic, foundational stuff we are talking about here. The fundamental concepts of democracy. Those aren’t just fun, patriotic words; they have actual meanings. Our government does not arise from “divine right” or “ancestral claims”. It exists because We The People willed it into existence. We willed into existence the right of the accused to be judged not by agents of the government, but by the peers of the accused. The same “We The People” who conveyed a tiny portion of their powers to allow the United States government to come into existence are charged also with wielding their power in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
You suggestion that the jury is beholden to the legislature is offensive. Your suggestion that “We The People” are legally and constitutionally obligated to enforce unjust laws promulgated by a corrupt legislature is absolutely galling. Made up poppycock that sounds nice? This is a core tenet of democracy we are talking about here.
I have asked you, repeatedly, to provide the constitutional basis for your claims, as I have repeatedly provided for mine. The closest you have come to any sort of support for your position is this statement:
That is not in any way a reasonable, rational argument.