Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a law is wrong (like slavery) it is your duty to nullify it. That is how I feel about the drug war. No wonder they do not call me for jury duty anymore.
Among other things, the small billboard says, "You have the right to 'hang'
the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors!" and, "Good
jurors nullify bad laws."
They, and we should be concerned about the advertising campaign. Jurors receive instructions from a Judge before deliberating, which they are obligated to follow ... as well as follow the law, whether they agree with the law or not.
If a law is wrong (like slavery) it is your duty to nullify it. That is how I feel about the drug war. No wonder they do not call me for jury duty anymore.
Couldn't rep ya, but amen! Just because it is a law, it doesn't mean it is a just or moral law.
And yet, in another thread, there are those who say that a Senator or Representative should vote their conscience, even if it is against the will of the people he/she represents.
Why is it OK for elected representatives, but not for Jurors?
But then, it is easy to get out of serving on a jury. Just say "I have been closely following the case, and the defendant is GUILTY (or INNOCENT, either will work)!"
The jury system comes from the theory that a group of common citizens are less likely to convict a person unjustly, than a highly politicized judicial system. It is FOUNDED upon the idea that a jury is made of individuals, who come with consciences and judgment - and one of those judgments BEING that it is wrong to unjustly convict someone, whether it's because the law is defective, or the charge against someone is defective.
I agree wholly with jury nullification. It is the LAST defense a man has against injustice.
They, and we should be concerned about the advertising campaign. Jurors receive instructions from a Judge before deliberating, which they are obligated to follow ... as well as follow the law, whether they agree with the law or not.
They are NOT obligated to follow said instructions.
And BTW, jury nullification is the reason why the 2nd amendment was written with no "reasonable restrictions" and no "except by due process of law".
It was so that EVERY time a government person (cop or judge or etc.) makes a decision to take someone's gun away, that person can sue the cop or judge and the question goes before a jury of ordinary citizens. If the cop took the person's gun away because the guy had just robbed a bank with it and injured two people, the jury can easily find the cop Not Guilty, even though the 2nd says he can't take ANYONE's gun away, and the cop walks.
But at the same time, if some town makes a law saying nobody can carry concealed unless some official personally signs off on it, and some guy gets hauled in for carrying concealed (but doing nothing harmful or threatening with it) without the required sign-off, the jury can find HIM Not Guilty, finding that the 2nd amendment supersedes the town law.
As someone already pointed out, Jury Nullification is the last line of defense. Some laws (like the 2nd amendment) are even written with that in mind.
It's harder for the government to run roughshod over the citizenry if they are well informed and well educated.
Of course people in government don't want citizens to know their rights; it is against their interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.