Jury nullification

[A18]

I support it, but in addition to being able to nullify bad law, they should also be able to declare a law unconstitutional and choose to nullify it on that basis.

[dazzleman]

I really don't think that a random jury of 12 citizens should be encouraged to substitute their own judgment for the judgment of elected representatives.

Jury nullification is a very dangerous concept.  Some black activists have pushed a form of jury nullification, saying that black jurors should acquit all black defendants no matter what because there are too many blacks in prison.  This is extremely dangerous and destructive to the fabric of society.

The OJ Simpson case is an example of de facto jury nullification, and it was totally wrong.

If a law is truly wrong, work to change it.  Jury nullification in all but the most egregious cases is a dangerous shortcut.

[David S]

As I understand it the judge instructs the jury to find the defendant guilty or not, based on the law and the facts in the case. If the defendant violated the law he's guilty, even though the law might be wrong or misapplied. But the jury can in effect tell the judge to pound sand and find the guy innocent anyway. Nothing can stop them from doing that. The judge cannot tell the jury they must find someone guilty. So jury nullification exists whether its in the books or not. Personally I think its a good thing. It gives the people another check on the power of government. But, it should only apply to the case in question, and not establish a precedent in law.

[A18]

But, it should only apply to the case in question, and not establish a precedent in law.

My thoughts exactly

[Peter]

I support it, but in addition to being able to nullify bad law, they should also be able to declare a law unconstitutional and choose to nullify it on that basis.

When you say "declare a law unconstitutional", I assume you mean only for the purposes of that case. If so I agree with you. If you mean juries should be able to strike entire laws in court cases permenantly, then I don't.

[A18]

I mean only for purposes of that case.

[Bono]

If I'm not wrong, if a jury nullifies a law, that becomes a precendent in common law.

Anyways, I'm strongly in favor of it.

[Richard]

If I'm not wrong, if a jury nullifies a law, that becomes a precendent in common law.

Anyways, I'm strongly in favor of it.

Anglo-Saxon Common law does not have precendents.  To govern by precedents is tyranny.

Juries should not have the power to nullify a law.  They can choose not to apply it, however.  Juries answer to no one, save God Himself.

[Bono]

If I'm not wrong, if a jury nullifies a law, that becomes a precendent in common law.

Anyways, I'm strongly in favor of it.

Anglo-Saxon Common law does not have precendents.  To govern by precedents is tyranny.

Juries should not have the power to nullify a law.  They can choose not to apply it, however.  Juries answer to no one, save God Himself.

Oh, my bad. Here we have civil law, so I don't really know all about that.

[Richard]

If I'm not wrong, if a jury nullifies a law, that becomes a precendent in common law.

Anyways, I'm strongly in favor of it.

Anglo-Saxon Common law does not have precendents.  To govern by precedents is tyranny.

Juries should not have the power to nullify a law.  They can choose not to apply it, however.  Juries answer to no one, save God Himself.

Oh, my bad. Here we have civil law, so I don't really know all about that.

No you don't.  The only places in North America where Civil Law is practiced to some extent is Louisiana and Quebec.

The United States is based on Common Law.  Sadly, over the ages, Civil Law has intruded.

Civil Law is tyranny.

[Bono]

If I'm not wrong, if a jury nullifies a law, that becomes a precendent in common law.

Anyways, I'm strongly in favor of it.

Anglo-Saxon Common law does not have precendents.  To govern by precedents is tyranny.

Juries should not have the power to nullify a law.  They can choose not to apply it, however.  Juries answer to no one, save God Himself.

Oh, my bad. Here we have civil law, so I don't really know all about that.

No you don't.  The only places in North America where Civil Law is practiced to some extent is Louisiana and Quebec.

The United States is based on Common Law.  Sadly, over the ages, Civil Law has intruded.

Civil Law is tyranny.

I live in Portugal. Read my signature.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support it, but in addition to being able to nullify bad law, they should also be able to declare a law unconstitutional and choose to nullify it on that basis.

I give it about 2 seconds until "activist juries" is a common phrase.

[patrick1]

I support it, but in addition to being able to nullify bad law, they should also be able to declare a law unconstitutional and choose to nullify it on that basis.

I give it about 2 seconds until "activist juries" is a common phrase.

That is a good one fern.^^^