Opinion of Jury Nullification

[Badger]

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.

[Badger]

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.

[Badger]

So much to respond to.

@ BK: I agree the providence of the juror's verdict shouldn'tt be disturbed. I don't think I ever said otherwise, even when the resuls comes from jury nullification. I do disagree with the prospect that jury nullification is still occassionally ok today, even though its results must be ratified. Has juror nullification ever avoided an injustice? Of course, and you've given several examples. But nullification i'd argue creates many more injustices than it solves. Don't write off To Kill a Mockingbird type verdicts as a relic of racist juror selection. That can still happen today based on issues as race, or simply "we all agree we have a really bad feeling about this guy, and it's not like they didn't present ANY evidence of his being the one, so...". (And no, BRTD, don't mistakenly believe a jury's decision alone can be "easily appealed and overturned". )

@ Dues Naturae: If you can't wholeheartedly follow the law as the judicial system tells you it is rather than what you think it is (or want it to be), you shouldn't be a juror, period. No offense, but it'd be the height of presumption for either one off us to decide we know what the Constitution REALLY means better than the entire silly ol' judicial system. The whole concept of our system is based on evryone deciding cases on a given set of rules and standards rather than each juror going off on their own tangent about what they individually believe is right or wrong and waht the Constitution 'really' says.

@ BRTD: I actually somwhat agree with you in that if the State (or Defense; everyone keeps mistakenly assuming nullification only screws the prosecution) allows a juror on a case without hitting on a particular issue that may trigger a nullification verdict, then yes the State MAY have failed based on the degree of questioning. Parties are limited in the amount of detail about the case they can discuss with jurors during voir dire. An attorney may be prohibited from going into the particular point that ultimately triggers a 'hell no, never" response from a particular juror.

Especially when the juror, you know, swore an oath to follow the law and the attorneys, God forbid, believed them. So even if a nullification prone juror gets seated due to limited voir dire (regardless whether limited by the Court or the failings of counsel) is still absolutely no excuse for a juor to then violate their oath to follow the law. For Pete's sake one could come forward even after the trial (or even deliberations) have started and be replaced. That's why there are alternate jurors selected. Even if all alternates were excused, better to come forward and cause a mistrrial so a truly impartial jury can rehear the case later. But to actively and illegally participate in tampering with the justice system by replacing--as opposed to supplementing--the law with personal individual values is just plain wrong.