Opinion of Jury Nullification

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Giving Badger the full benefit of the doubt, the problem in To Kill A Mockingbird was not necessarily that the jury was racist, but that even if there was a non-racist on the jury, they could not dare vote anything other than guilty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Get rid of the jury system in its current form. Create a new system of full time professional jurors.

In certain areas of civil law, where technical distinctions not commonly discernable by those with pre-existing knowledge of the topic, replacing the right to a jury trial makes sense. But for criminal law, absolutely not. A criminal law that is so complicated that average citizens can't comprehend what is alleged to be the offence is a bad law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Get rid of the jury system in its current form. Create a new system of full time professional jurors.

In certain areas of civil law, where technical distinctions not commonly discernable by those with pre-existing knowledge of the topic, replacing the right to a jury trial makes sense. But for criminal law, absolutely not. A criminal law that is so complicated that average citizens can't comprehend what is alleged to be the offence is a bad law.

It's not a matter of it being complicated. Having trained jurors would actually make the system SIMPLER. Not only would it removed the need for jury selection, it would remove the need for sequestering.

Trained to do what? Pay attention to what our gallant and well meaning prosecutors tell you? And if you don't, we'll find someone else to do your job? Juries made up of the common people can serve as an important check on government overreach.