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 just make this part up because it sounds nice ?
Absolutely not.
But you’re unable to support your claim.
I am able to support my claim, and I am doing so in our other conversation. The basis of my claim here relies on an understanding of the purpose and need for a layperson jury. My claim here arises naturally from that underlying point, which is better developed in our other thread.
“I’m right but I just can’t explain it because you don’t understand it”.
I wouldn’t say it that way, but I won’t say that is an inaccurate summarization.
Our other conversation is a far more productive avenue of approach.
It would seem so to those who don’t have a moral code. It makes perfect sense to those who do. Iykyk
Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.
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.
If I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.
That’s the argument.
You might feel thats how things ought to be but you’re unable to support your statement with anything other than the vibe.
We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.
If you feel that someone who kills a CEO you don’t like should be exempt from a charge of murder then you should discuss that with your local representative.