Opinion of Jury Nullification

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

That's kind of a logical fallacy equivalent to saying use of violence is always morally the same whether it's to assault an unrelated person or in self-defense.

There's times when the law is completely unjust or applying it in this circumstances would be where there has to be some sort of recourse against it. Good examples are that woman in New Jersey with the concealed carry permit from another state not valid in NJ, or the case mentioned above with the kids being charged with murder of their friend.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

SPC kind of touched on that above. Really though I see this as kind of an issue where state has more responsibility than any juror.

So if someone disagrees with a law so fervently that they could never vote to uphold it on a jury then they shouldn't be on a jury for that case. Fine. But let's say someone ends up on such a jury anyway? Then who's failed? The state has. At that point it would be completely unfair to ask that person to do something in violation of their moral conscience anyway.

If in a jury pool I'll let my views on certain laws be known and if the state wants to exclude me from juries on such cases then fine, but they're not going to make me sentence someone over such a law anymore than they're going to make me assist in executions (assuming of course that I both lived in a state with the death penalty and was qualified to do so...neither applies but obviously if either one did I would still never be willing to work assisting with an execution under any circumstances whatsoever.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's also something that could be easily appealed and overturned.

Brings up an interesting scenario though, take someone who is being tried for some crime that a lot of people don't have any problem with, but is also a pretty nasty person otherwise. Like for example a marijuana dealer who also appears to be a spousal abuser. Wonder if convicting that person even if you normally wouldn't would also qualify as jury nullification.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think most people think of cases like this when they say "I'll uphold the law" seeing it more as a generic thing like software Terms of Service, or doesn't cover people who say that at first thinking in the abstract but then get a conscience attack when they find out what the case is actually about.

Then there's also cases where the law is badly worded or is outdated in intent and can end up with some types of prosecutions that most people would find horrendous. For example I read about how in Michigan, the state had a law making it a felony to gain "unauthorized access to a computer network", a law that was obviously aimed at computer hacking and the like, but was several decades old and written so vaguely that it actually covered accessing someone else's non-password protected wi-fi network without the owner's permission, and thus not only prohibited that but made it a felony. A felony for piggybacking on wi-fi is not what most people would see as "upholding the law" since it's clearly not what the law was written about.

Another example I heard about thanks to Ingress is Tennessee's statute regarding cemeteries:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like a pretty standard law aimed a preventing cemetery desecration or trespassing. However note the "play at any game or amusement" bit. This means that any person who plays Ingress in a cemetery in Tennessee, even if all they do is walk in, claim a portal on their phone silently and walk out (or hell even if they happened to claim a portal while they were visiting a grave) or kids playing hide and go seek in a cemetery are guilty of felonies in Tennessee. I think most people would find this a bit draconian, regardless of what your opinion of playing Ingress in cemeteries is (and it's not in any way dispruptive, it's about equivalent to someone walking into a cemetery and sending a text message. Playing Ingress looks like texting.)

Then there's this example.

Now while such laws are quite common, most states have safeguards to prevent this sort of thing from happening, such as putting up warning signs in all stores that sell cold medicine (this is the case in Minnesota) or requiring ID or tracking such purchases made on a credit card and not allowing further purchases if someone hits the limit. Indiana doesn't do any of this. So it's quite clear the Indiana law is quite poorly designed, and victimized a woman completely innocent of what it's targeting.

And then there's this: http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/01/persecuted-pills

A man was tried for possessing drugs he had a prescription for, with the prosecutor outright saying "there is no prescription defense" under Florida law. Seriously. Now even if that's technically true, then it means the Florida law is idiotic, badly written and it does no one any favors to uphold it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Perfect example just arose: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=207693.0