Opinion of Jury Nullification

[Deus Naturae]

Juries already have the right to do so, as jurors can't be punished for their decision. The only way to get rid of jury nullification would to be to change that, which would obviously be horrible.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

You're the one who needs to re-read the book, as it was about a black man being convicted by a racist jury, not a racist jury acquitting a lyncher or something like that.

And again, jury nullification is already completely legal. The only relevant question is whether juries should be informed of their right to nullify. Hardcore racists will attempt to protect lynchers etc regardless of whether the judge informs them of their right to do so. When it comes to various tyrannical statues, jurors may not be aware that they are allowed to exercise their conscience.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

If you have such strong views a law is immoral or the like, you shouldcampaign to change it, but NOT serve on a jury where your oath is to follow and uphold the law.

Again, seeing so called "progressives" defending a practice fiercely loved by every far-right freeman/militia ultra tea-party type is amusing to say the least.

What if you believe the law to be in conflict with a higher law, such as the Constitution?

[Deus Naturae]

Badger, you seem to be under the impression that "The Law" isn't itself a product of personal and individual values. That strikes me as obviously untrue.

Also, jury nullification isn't illegal. Aside from the obvious fact that there is no statue outlawing it, it has a long precedent in American jurisprudence and English Common Law. You protest that an individual is unfit to contradict decisions already made by the court system, yet the court system itself had upheld the right of jury nullification again and again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, by opposing the right of jury nullification, you yourself are contradicting the established opinions of the judicial system and are guilty of exactly what you accuse nullifiers of.