Jury Duty

[marshaul]

Yepper. It appears that you will bet your freedom on jury nullification after you are prosecuted for a bogus crime from a stupid law or that LE is corrupt.

No. I wouldn't bet on my being so lucky. That's not a good way to stay out of jail.

But I am also moral enough to do to recognize that, were I to serve on a jury, I would have an obligation to prevent, so far as I would be capable, state-initiated aggression against a non-aggressor.

Powerball or jury nullification, odds are the same in my view. If it ain't unanimous it ain't jury nullification. If it is unanimous it won't change the law for anybody else.

Juries which refuse to convict are indeed a form of jury nullification. The government must try all over again for a conviction, to potentially face the same result. Frequently, it doesn't bother. If 10% of Americans refused to convict for a given offense, it would be very hard to find a jury without at least one member who would refuse to convict for that offense, thus making it statistically very hard to secure a conviction for that offense.

There are loads of laws which at least 10% of Americans think are bad (drug laws, gun laws, you name it). The government knows very well that, were jury nullification to become common, it would become very hard to enforce many of these sorts of laws. Hence their interest in pretending the concept is illegal or incompatible with justice.

The sole problem is, I'm afraid, folks like you, who go to great lengths to defend their unwillingness to spend a few days standing up for their fellow citizens, even when specifically called to do exactly that.

The problem isn't that we need 100% of jurors to nullify. The problem is that the scant 8% we do need to hang a jury needed are frequently too selfish to do their duty, instead snarkily wallowing in cynical apathy, or so it would seem.

If every person who had a problem with government laws dedicated themselves to actually making it on a jury when called, and had a willingness to nullify, the country would change significantly for the better.

And we don't need to win an overnight political coup, or have any landslides. All we need to do is get people motivated, one percent at a time. From a certain perspective, this may indeed be the most readily-available means of mitigating government tyranny, right now, today.

All you do is let off a person who deserves to be in-jail because you don't like the law as written. OR, you don't like LE because they are permitted to lie, cheat and steal to get a conviction.

Aha. I see now. This, I think, is the real problem. You think people deserve to be in jail who violate bad laws.

I do not.

 

[Citizen]

Hey, there is a bill in the Montana legislature supportive of jury nullification. There was a committee hearing just last Weds:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_6d7f2524-348b-11e0-8caa-001cc4c002e0.html


Wonderful!

 

[PT111]

There was a local case a few years back that a local County Sheriff was accused of various illegal activities including drugs, theft, misappropiation of funds and about 10 other accounts. When elected it was clearly voter fraud but due to careful watch by the NAACP and a high ranking Congressman nothing could really be done. The Feds had the goods on this fellow and there was no doubt about his guilt, only that they had only really touched the surface. He was put on trial in the county he was formerly sheriff three times, each resulting in a hung jury. Finally they were able to move the case to another county and that time it took the jury less than one hour to return a guilty verdict on all counts.

In the first three trials it wasn't about jury nullification but rather race and fear. Word had been spread that woe be unto the person that convicts him, and that it was simply he was being singled out for being black. Just about anyone with any intelligence was immediately challenged and dismissed from being a potential jurirst in this case pretty much only the sheriff's buddies were allowed to be on the jury.

One question I do have is how would you replace our present system of jury trials. Maybe we should just do like they use to and let the judge render all verdicts or maybe even go back to the foot vice and if you can stand the pain you are innocent.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP One question I do have is how would you replace our present system of jury trials. Maybe we should just do like they use to and let the judge render all verdicts or maybe even go back to the foot vice and if you can stand the pain you are innocent.

I'm not aware that anyone suggested replacing our present system of jury trials. Did someone in this thread suggest it?

However, lets say replacement has a place in the conversation here.

I would say, heck yes, replace the current system with the one from 60-100 years ago where many jurors knew the power of the jury to check government by nullification--voting their conscience on the law itself.

Alternatively, I could say that the current system where schools and government have undermined the people's power over government by letting it fall from knowledge is the replacement for the constitutional version where jurors knew their full powers. And, it weren't a good replacement, neither. So, replace the replacement, in so many words.

But, this is all just fun words. The fact remains that jury nullification is still a part of the system, so no replacement is needed. Government has no authority to just up and nullify jury nullification. To say it does is a little like saying the National Guard is the militia, thus the 2A is moot--where does Congress have the power to statutorily nullify the 2A by inventing a new version of militia rather than a constitutional amendment?

 

[PT111]

I did not mean to say that anyone wanted to replace the jury system but so many want out of it and criticize it I just wonder what the alternatives of our present system are. I recognize many of the problems with the present system and the same as you I would like to return to the point where a jury of your peers meant much more than being of the same race, sex etc. than being able to make an intelligent decision. I do not like the fact that a trial has become competition between the prosecutor and defense attorney rather than a search for truth. One of the foundations of this country is the trial by jury and to confront accusers but somewhere along the line we have allowed it to become corrupted. When we refuse to be part of it we just enhance that corruption. As was stated in an earlier post that when a jury is seated they become the sole decision maker. Sometimes a judge will determine that the defense has not presented evidence to support the case but does not judge actually judge innocent or guilty. Only the jury actually does that and when entering the jury room the deliberations are private. If a jury decides that a person is innocent due to a bad law then it is no one's business but the juries. But before you decide on jury nullification you should listen to the facts of the case and the law, not decide before. Deciding a case before hearing it in court is not jury nullification but rather anarchy. From many of the posts on here it would be very hard for any of us to get a jury of our peers as everyone would be figuring out a way to keep from serving.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I did not mean to say that anyone wanted to replace the jury system...

Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing it up.