Jury Nullifcation?

[Clove]

The Obstinate Dr. Heicklen

By Scott Horton

The New York Times reports on the case of Julian P. Heicklen, a 78-year-old retired chemistry professor from New Jersey, who now faces federal criminal charges. What has the mild-mannered Dr. Heicklen done?

Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood [at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan] and at courthouse entrances elsewhere and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience. That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it. But federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates a law against jury tampering.

Federal prosecutors in New York have reached the alarming decision that informing individuals on the street in front of the courthouse (some of whom may be en route to serve on a jury pool) about the doctrine of jury nullification is a criminal act. Their view would find no sympathy among the authors of America’s constitutional system.

Jury nullification has a long and noble history in America. William Penn’s trial in 1671 is often taken as the first textbook case illustrating the doctrine. Charged with “breaching the King’s peace” (more or less the charge that prosecutors previously tried against Heicklen) because he convened a gathering of Quakers in London, jurors were charged to convict Penn. They steadfastly refused. There was no doubt that Penn had broken the law. The jurors’ quarrel was rather with the prosecutors who brought the charges and the judge who ran the court, whom they viewed as instruments of repression, and with the law itself, which, as it was being applied, was manifestly unjust. In the end Penn and the jurors all went to prison, but the injustice of the entire process belongs to the chain of events that presaged the American Revolution and led the nation’s founders to embrace nullification.

At the sedition trial of journalist John Peter Zenger in 1735, Andrew Hamilton recounted the story of the Penn trial to a New York jury and admonished them that whatever the law and facts, they had the right to acquit Zenger if they held that to be the just result. They followed his advice in an outcome that laid the foundation for American press freedom.

America’s Founding Fathers made their case to juries arguing for nullification. John Adams, when defending John Hancock in 1771, insisted that the juror has not merely the “right” but actually the “duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” and its understanding of the law. Conscience should serve as a safety valve, he argued, against unjust laws, or against just laws, unjustly applied.

Since then, jury nullification has been used to block the prosecution of those who helped slaves flee captivity or who simply offered them education; to free those who faced prosecution for resisting military service in unpopular wars or whose conscience forbade them to bear arms; and to end the prosecution of women who sought abortions and the doctors who served them. In the December 1926 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Walter Lippmann made the case for the use of jury nullification to address some of the extreme prosecutions resulting from the Volstead Act. In the December 1995 issue, Paul Butler argued that minorities should use jury nullification to press social issues.

The “controversy” relates not to nullification as a doctrine but to a far narrower issue: can the jurors be told that they have this right? Prosecutors and judges detest this notion because it strikes at the core of their power to interpret and guide the application of the law. No doubt about it: nullification makes their lives difficult. Consider the recent dilemma of prosecutors and judges in Montana, unable to find a pool of jurors willing to convict anyone for possession of marijuana, no matter the evidence.

Julian Heicklen’s conduct is remarkably like that of the seventeenth century pamphleteers whose obstinate insistence on rights and fair process belongs to the animating background of the American Revolution. Consider the case of John Lilburne, for instance, who was repeatedly arrested and tried for distributing pamphlets articulating a vision of natural rights and whose stout defiance of prosecutors and judges led directly to the notion of the right of confrontation and the exclusion of secret evidence. Consciously or not, Heicklen even embraces their tactics—like Lilburne and early dissenters, he kept his silence in response to questioning from the bench. Heicklen is just the sort of defendant that jurors in days gone by would have recognized as a victim of persecution and would have acquitted. And the federal prosecutors, no doubt aware of this fact, are eager to keep his case before a judge who shares their belief that jurors must be kept ignorant of the existence of the doctrine of jury nullification.

Shortly before his death, Thomas Jefferson noted with disdain that judges were working hard to bury jury nullification. It reflected a pernicious “slide into toryism,” he remarked in a letter to James Madison in 1826. In Jefferson’s view, judges and prosecutors who rejected the jury’s right of nullification were betraying the values of the Constitution and instead embracing those of the British Crown. “They suppose themselves… Whigs, because they no longer know what Whigism or republicanism means.” The fundamental question to put to the “tory” prosecutors who have brought the Heicklen case is simple: what about the First Amendment?http://harpers.org/archive/2011/02/hbc-90008006

Discuss.

[ClydeR]

Juries are supposed to enforce the law, not make the law. Everybody seems to want Congress' job. I can't imagine why, with all the long hours and time away from home.

[AnticorRifling]

In before TheE mentions tort.

[~Rocktar~]

Juries are supposed to enforce the law, not make the law. Everybody seems to want Congress' job. I can't imagine why, with all the long hours and time away from home.

In doing this, they don't make law, they make precedent which is not law. What they can and should do is decide if the law applies in the case, how it applies and decide the case. It is the juries job to render a verdict, either guilty, not guilty or some variant thereof and in many cases they can even issue sentencing as well, even though that is not always mentioned. Juries can also ask questions, ask for the legal clarification from the judge and so on.

Ultimately, it is power to the people which isn't inherently a bad thing. The bad thing is jury composition and that is a whole other can of worms.

BTW, can't see "long hours and time away from home" as problems with Congress since most of the time they work from like 8-4 at best and most move their family to near DC anyway.

[Keller]

In doing this, they don't make law, they make precedent which is not law.

THE RETARD IS MAXIMUM

[Kid Danger]

Prosecutors decide to prosecute a man exercising his 1st amendment right because they don't like what he's saying. The charge that it's jury tampering is a very thin premise. Doubt it will hold up.

[~Rocktar~]

THE RETARD IS MAXIMUM

In your post, it sure is.

[Kid Danger]

Juries are supposed to enforce the law, not make the law. Everybody seems to want Congress' job. I can't imagine why, with all the long hours and time away from home.

The dark areas are the days they are in session. Surely they are busting their ass to the max on those long work days. I don't necessarily want the job but gotta love those days off. Teachers ain't got shit on House reps.

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/1qeqzruqdcsbjas/images/1-b9e8a16bd9.jpg

[Parkbandit]

The dark areas are the days they are in session. Surely they are busting their ass to the max on those long work days. I don't necessarily want the job but gotta love those days off. Teachers ain't got shit on House reps.



Do you think that the only time they have to work is when Congress is in session?

Personally, they should get paid far less and be in session far fewer days.

[Warriorbird]

Do you think that the only time they have to work is when Congress is in session?

Personally, they should get paid far less and be in session far fewer days.

It's scary when I agree with PB.

[Archigeek]

The jury issues a verdict; it doesn't make law. They are charged with deciding on their verdict based on the evidence put before them, and THE LAW pretty much says they can reach whatever verdict they wish. In the US, once the jury begins deliberation, they are essentially kings, in that what they say goes.

I was on a jury once where there was a similar quandry regarding whether or not the letter of the law should be applied: It was what should have been a simple case of a felon in possession of a firearm, but it wasn't so simple.

What if the firearm is a rusty antique with a flower in the barrel and no ammunition present? But what if he's got 7 prior felony convictions, many of them for brutal violence, and an 8th conviction might carry huge add-on penalties, regarless of how minor the offense? And what if in spite of his bad history, he's started a new life with a family and been "clean" for 12 years? The obvious isn't always as clear as it first seems.

[Clove]

So Keller, you wanna go hand out pamphlets with me?

[Kid Danger]

Do you think that the only time they have to work is when Congress is in session?

I don't believe that the only time they have to work is when Congress is in session. I am saying that it is much more difficult to account for the amount of work a rep is doing when Congress is not in session. I honestly believe that some bust their ass for their constituents but many appear to be phoning it in.

[Keller]

In your post, it sure is.

Please explain (i) why precedent is not law and (ii) why juries (who decide only matters of fact and not law) make precedent (which is by its very nature law).

Seriously, your statement was double retarded. First, you attributed an activity to the wrong group (juries don't make precedent) and then, second, denied the very nature of judicial precedent (that it makes up our common law).

There are not words for that kind of retarded.

[Clove]

Well, you see a lawyer walked into Walmart once and told him...

[Latrinsorm]

The author of the article is embarrassingly biased. Recall the travesties jury nullification gave us during the civil rights movement, of the murderers and terrorists who walked free because of all-white Southern juries, and tell me with a straight face this is something we should be advocating.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would not be an acceptable defense for telling someone "if you vote Joey the Stiletto guilty we'll kill your children". If what Dr. Heicklen did was jury tampering, the First Amendment is irrelevant.

[Clove]

The author of the article is embarrassingly biased. Recall the travesties jury nullification gave us during the civil rights movement, of the murderers and terrorists who walked free because of all-white Southern juries, and tell me with a straight face this is something we should be advocating.That's a two way street, remember OJ?

[WRoss]

That's a two way street, remember OJ?

OJ is innocent and has proven to be an upstanding citizen of society since he was proven innocent!

[ClydeR]

If he had been handing out brochures with the opposite message -- urging jurors not to nullify the law -- would that have been jury tampering?

[~Rocktar~]

Please explain (i) why precedent is not law and (ii) why juries (who decide only matters of fact and not law) make precedent (which is by its very nature law).


In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

I did not say that a precedent was limited to only being made by a jury. A jury surely CAN decide a case and in doing so outline a procedure or rule for decisions in that matter which is a precedent. Sorry to burst your overly active and bubble, but the facts remain, if a jury decides a case and issues a written decision or statement, decides to apply or not apply a law or any number of other circumstances, then they very well can and do establish a precedent. Plainly stated in the cited article, precedents are not Laws, only rules on how a law is applied in "identical or similar material facts". Precedents may or may not be binding and may be decided to not apply. In addition, since they are not created by legislation, while they may act as common law, they are not in fact laws and therefore not nearly as binding.




Seriously, your statement was double retarded. First, you attributed an activity to the wrong group (juries don't make precedent) and then, second, denied the very nature of judicial precedent (that it makes up our common law).

There are not words for that kind of retarded.

Seriously, you are just fucking wrong. Since juries do decide cases, do decide if, where and how to apply the law to cases, they can and do make Precedents. In addition, judges and lawyers can also do so in the arguments, rulings and writings about cases.

[TheEschaton]

I'd be hard pressed to say that a SCOTUS ruling that served as precedent for future rulings, was not the law of the land.

Furthermore, jurors don't given written decisions other than to find someone guilty or not guilty, or whatnot. Even in a case where, for example, X cuts off all his hair, runs naked through the street, and then murders a guy for supposedly giving him the evil eye, where the jury finds him not guilty for reasons of insanity, the jury is not setting a precedent that says insanity includes these things or not. I could not pursue a case later with the same facts, and have the judge rule that by law the guy was insane. They're merely saying that the facts, in their minds, support what the law says about insanity. Precedent is made in appeals, where 1) the judge doesn't contest the findings of fact of the jury, and 2) examines whether the law needs to be adjusted or not to account for those facts. You would NEVER cite a trial as precedent. It's retarded. You may cite the jury instructions used in that trial, but you can't somehow make the tenuous connection between the findings of that particular case and those instructions.

As it is, I'm all for jury nullification. I'm by no means a legal positivist, and thus do not believe in the authority of a law just because it was made authoritatively.

-TheE-

[Clove]

The author of the article is embarrassingly biased. Recall the travesties jury nullification gave us during the civil rights movement, of the murderers and terrorists who walked free because of all-white Southern juries, and tell me with a straight face this is something we should be advocating.On those examples alone I don't think anyone would advocate nullification with a straight face. Coupled with examples of nullification exonerating escaped slaves and those that aided them, conscientious objectors, women seeking abortions, etc. then the choice becomes less simple. In my opinion (and I believe I'm in good company here) jurors are charged with determining innocence or guilt not simply on the basis of law, but on the basis of justice. What you're saying is that a jury can get that determination wrong either ignorantly, or maliciously- and that possibility always exists.


I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would not be an acceptable defense for telling someone "if you vote Joey the Stiletto guilty we'll kill your children". If what Dr. Heicklen did was jury tampering, the First Amendment is irrelevant.I'd be very surprised to learn that he was passing out threatening pamphlets. I'm no legal expert either and I agree that if his pamphlets discuss cases specifically it becomes a more complicated question; but my personal feeling is if he is simply in public (albeit a public place where jurors are most likely) expressing opinions on a case he isn't necessarily tampering (though I'm sure some legal eagles would disagree and I can't claim any authority in my opinion). After all, couldn't he simply publish or broadcast his opinion (where any juror may read, watch or listen) is that so different?

[Keller]

A jury surely CAN decide a case and in doing so outline a procedure or rule for decisions in that matter which is a precedent. Sorry to burst your overly active and bubble, but the facts remain, if a jury decides a case and issues a written decision or statement, decides to apply or not apply a law or any number of other circumstances, then they very well can and do establish a precedent.

Let's try this again.

JUDGES decide issues of law.

JURIES decide issues of fact.

JURIES do NOT make precedent.

JUDGES make precedent.

Precedent IS law, binding on lower courts of that jurisdiction.

These are FACTS and not open to debate.

Stop being a fucking retard.

[AnticorRifling]

Keller I don't want to scare you but you're arguing with a guy that has quick and easy access to things like http://www.walmart.com/ip/13073518

[Clove]

Not to mention Wikipedia... with resources like that at his fingertips an education in law seems feeble.

[Latrinsorm]

On those examples alone I don't think anyone would advocate nullification with a straight face. Coupled with examples of nullification exonerating escaped slaves and those that aided them, conscientious objectors, women seeking abortions, etc. then the choice becomes less simple. In my opinion (and I believe I'm in good company here) jurors are charged with determining innocence or guilt not simply on the basis of law, but on the basis of justice. What you're saying is that a jury can get that determination wrong either ignorantly, or maliciously- and that possibility always exists.In my opinion the choice is very, very easy: neither advocate nor forbid jury nullification. It is a grossly imperfect mechanism, and we should aspire for better.

[Clove]

In my opinion the choice is very, very easy: neither advocate nor forbid jury nullification. It is a grossly imperfect mechanism, and we should aspire for better.The law is imperfect which is a reason to include nullification in the jury process. Merely making juries aware of their right to nullify isn't the same as advocating it. A juror should know the roles they can play in justice, it's as simple as that.

[Kid Danger]

The law is imperfect which is a reason to include nullification in the jury process. Merely making juries aware of their right to nullify isn't the same as advocating it. A juror should know the roles they can play in justice, it's as simple as that.

:yeahthat:

[Tgo01]

Judges should decide guilt or innocence. And and and the judge should carry out the execution too.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think people on a jury should always vote their conscience. We have so many fucked up laws that I truly think the only way to actually met out justice is if a jury ignores the laws and votes on what is right and wrong.

Sure there are flaws, but it's damn better than trying to enforce "You can't whisper to a sleeping bear in August" or more with the times "No anal sex in this county". Or whatever retard law is still on the books.

Who needs lawyers, right?

[Warriorbird]

I think there's a big difference in allowing for the existence of nullification info and actually HANDING IT OUT OUTSIDE THE COURT TO TAINT THE JURY.

[Tgo01]

I think people on a jury should always vote their conscience. We have so many fucked up laws that I truly think the only way to actually met out justice is if a jury ignores the laws and votes on what is right and wrong.

Isn't it a jury's job to decide if the person is indeed guilty of breaking a law? Not whether or not said law is just?

That's kind of like saying it's okay for a police officer to beat up a suspect because he feels his punishment won't be enough if he's found guilty.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think there's a big difference in allowing for the existence of nullification info and actually HANDING IT OUT OUTSIDE THE COURT TO TAINT THE JURY.

Wow, you sound like you are against freedom of speech.

[Clove]

I think there's a big difference in allowing for the existence of nullification info and actually HANDING IT OUT OUTSIDE THE COURT TO TAINT THE JURY.How is making the jury aware of a power they already have tainting it? Tainting would be arguing that they ought to use nullification in the case they're hearing but simply informing them that they may? I call bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

It could lead to a biased jury. Everyone deserves a fair trial. That fair trial also includes a chance of conviction due to existing law and punishment under that law. Diminish it and you diminish our system and society.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Isn't it a jury's job to decide if the person is indeed guilty of breaking a law? Not whether or not said law is just?

That's kind of like saying it's okay for a police officer to beat up a suspect because he feels his punishment won't be enough if he's found guilty.

Not in my mind. A jury that fines someone, sends them to prison, or whatever, for having anal sex (as an example) is not doing anyone justice. They are enforcing a law that shouldn't exist.

Isn't the point of our court system to provide justice? Not to enforce laws?

[Clove]

Isn't it a jury's job to decide if the person is indeed guilty of breaking a law? Not whether or not said law is just?

That's kind of like saying it's okay for a police officer to beat up a suspect because he feels his punishment won't be enough if he's found guilty.It's the jury's job to decide innocence or guilt not whether or not someone broke a law.

[Clove]

It could lead to a biased jury. Everyone deserves a fair trial. That fair trial also includes a chance of conviction due to existing law.Biased how? Biased because they are aware that they have the power to decide innocence/guilt not merely lawbreaker/lawabider? Where is the bias in understanding their rights as a juror?

[Warriorbird]

Biased how? Biased because they are aware that they have the power to decide innocence/guilt not merely lawbreaker/lawabider? Where is the bias in understanding their rights as a juror?

How about you answer that? What bias do you think it adds?

We live in a world filled with unintended consequences. It's why jury instructions are so very important.

[Clove]

How about you answer that? What bias do you think it adds?

We live in a world filled with unintended consequences. It's why jury instructions are so very important.Then pass a law and take the power away. But so long as jurors possess it I can't find any reason to deliberately keep jurors ignorant of it. Would it not also be biasing a jury to instruct them to decide only on whether or not they believe a defendent broke the law even though they may feel he or she were justified and even though it is within the right of the juror to do so?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How about you answer that? What bias do you think it adds?

We live in a world filled with unintended consequences. It's why jury instructions are so very important.

The Purpose of a Jury - Law 200 Level Course
The purpose of trial by jury, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, is to prevent "oppression by the government." To perform that role, jurors must act independently and conscientiously, and they must be prepared to "just say no" if they believe that a conviction would be unjust. Nothing else satisfies the purpose of trial by jury, or provides the protection to liberty that the Founders intended to provide in our Bill of Rights. http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-09-98.html

I found it on the internet and I agree with it, so it must be right.

[Clove]

You have my permission to have sex without condoms SHM.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't know, I just subscribe to the whole point of a justice system, is to met out justice. A jury of 12 "randomly" selected, unbiased, people, feels good to me that they vote their conscience.

Here is how I view the world.

Police enforce laws. (or the equivalent of police, but essentially government employees designed to enforce the rules of our society)
Lawyers and politicians make the rules (based on a fundamental set of rules like the constitution and they are designed in general, for the betterment/safety of society)
Juries, on a case by case basis, determine from facts germane to that specific case, if someone did something wrong. Unrelated to the law, but based on morals that the law likely supports.

Sure, I'm over simplifying it, but really that's how I view it. If 12 independent people tell me I did something wrong, society has determined I did something unacceptable to society at that time. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Society changes over time (take the old crazy ass laws that are still on the books today as a perfect example of that type of change) and juries should be able to ignore that shit.

Just because something is a law, doesn't mean it's irrefutable.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Unless that is Judge Dread law.

[Latrinsorm]

Wow, you sound like you are against freedom of speech.Everyone capable of rational thought is against freedom of speech sometimes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Everyone capable of rational thought is against freedom of speech sometimes.

I am only against YOUR freedom of speech.

[Tgo01]

Not in my mind. A jury that fines someone, sends them to prison, or whatever, for having anal sex (as an example) is not doing anyone justice. They are enforcing a law that shouldn't exist.

Who says the law shouldn't exist? Maybe someones idea of a law that is stupid and shouldn't exist isn't something you agree with.


It's the jury's job to decide innocence or guilt not whether or not someone broke a law.

What exactly are they deciding innocence or guilt of it not breaking a law?

[TheEschaton]

You're taking the legal positivist view, Tgo, which, fair enough, is the prevailing view in modern legal philosophy. To extend that view, though, is to come to the conclusion that Dred Scot was "good law" by virtue of it being written as a final appeal to the Supreme Court. These same people then would argue that it would be the binding precedent on Brown v. Board of Education, and that Brown was decided wrongly. Ironically enough, I had a fellow 1L argue this very idea to my Con Law professor, a man who argued in front of SCOTUS for civil rights. It was a pretty brutal argument.

Us natural lawyers would argue that Dred Scot was always bad law, and not applying it would have been the just, and right thing to do. The law, in our view, does not derive its authority from the fact that people have decided it should be a law, but because it conforms to right principles. We would say that the making of a law does not exist in a vacuum, neither does SCOTUS, and it can be prejudiced and oppressive and racist, because it is made up of legislators who can be prejudiced, oppressive, and racist. The weakness of natural law, of course, is deciding the guiding principles which deems a law bad even if properly legislated and passed and upheld. That goes into the area of moral theory, which, of course, is something the Founding Fathers were wary of, they wanted this to be a nation "of laws, not men."

ETA: As for whether people should be notified of their right to jury nullification, that's difficult. I, of course, like the idea of juries not finding any one guilty for marijuana possession, but it's a double edged sword, and the public often favors policemen, so who's to say they can't side with officers, no matter how brutal they are? A tricky question indeed. All you can do is hope for a lawyer or someone who knows about nullification, being on the jury, which is, btw, why most prosecutors use voir dire to weed out lawyers. ;)

[Keller]

You're taking the legal positivist view, Tgo, which, fair enough, is the prevailing view in modern legal philosophy. To extend that view, though, is to come to the conclusion that Dred Scot was "good law" by virtue of it being written as a final appeal to the Supreme Court. These same people then would argue that it would be the binding precedent on Brown v. Board of Education, and that Brown was decided wrongly. Ironically enough, I had a fellow 1L argue this very idea to my Con Law professor, a man who argued in front of SCOTUS for civil rights. It was a pretty brutal argument.

Us natural lawyers would argue that Dred Scot was always bad law, and not applying it would have been the just, and right thing to do. The law, in our view, does not derive its authority from the fact that people have decided it should be a law, but because it conforms to right principles. We would say that the making of a law does not exist in a vacuum, neither does SCOTUS, and it can be prejudiced and oppressive and racist, because it is made up of legislators who can be prejudiced, oppressive, and racist. The weakness of natural law, of course, is deciding the guiding principles which deems a law bad even if properly legislated and passed and upheld. That goes into the area of moral theory, which, of course, is something the Founding Fathers were wary of, they wanted this to be a nation "of laws, not men."

ETA: As for whether people should be notified of their right to jury nullification, that's difficult. I, of course, like the idea of juries not finding any one guilty for marijuana possession, but it's a double edged sword, and the public often favors policemen, so who's to say they can't side with officers, no matter how brutal they are? A tricky question indeed. All you can do is hope for a lawyer or someone who knows about nullification, being on the jury, which is, btw, why most prosecutors use voir dire to weed out lawyers. ;)

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but the 14th amendment overruled Dred Scott.

Brown overrulled Plessy.

Sincerely,
JD/BA in African American Studies.

[TheEschaton]

Fuck you.

[TheEschaton]

In other words, I was THINKING Plessy, in that I was thinking of the separate, yet equal train cars versus the separate but equal school systems.

[Warriorbird]

I don't know, I just subscribe to the whole point of a justice system, is to met out justice. A jury of 12 "randomly" selected, unbiased, people, feels good to me that they vote their conscience.

Here is how I view the world.

Police enforce laws. (or the equivalent of police, but essentially government employees designed to enforce the rules of our society)
Lawyers and politicians make the rules (based on a fundamental set of rules like the constitution and they are designed in general, for the betterment/safety of society)
Juries, on a case by case basis, determine from facts germane to that specific case, if someone did something wrong. Unrelated to the law, but based on morals that the law likely supports.

Sure, I'm over simplifying it, but really that's how I view it. If 12 independent people tell me I did something wrong, society has determined I did something unacceptable to society at that time. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Society changes over time (take the old crazy ass laws that are still on the books today as a perfect example of that type of change) and juries should be able to ignore that shit.

Just because something is a law, doesn't mean it's irrefutable.

In a somewhat conservative view I consider the rule of law important to the continued function of our society. Juries should not be tainted towards questioning laws or mindlessly agreeing with them. I'd be just as against somebody standing outside a court and handing out statistics about how felons never really were rehabilitated.

[Tgo01]

Police enforce laws. (or the equivalent of police, but essentially government employees designed to enforce the rules of our society)
Lawyers and politicians make the rules (based on a fundamental set of rules like the constitution and they are designed in general, for the betterment/safety of society)
Juries, on a case by case basis, determine from facts germane to that specific case, if someone did something wrong. Unrelated to the law, but based on morals that the law likely supports.

Aren't the roles police and politicians play in this process kind of pointless if juries are supposed to disregard laws anyways in favor of morals?

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know, I just subscribe to the whole point of a justice system, is to met out justice. A jury of 12 "randomly" selected, unbiased, people, feels good to me that they vote their conscience.

Here is how I view the world.

Police enforce laws. (or the equivalent of police, but essentially government employees designed to enforce the rules of our society)
Lawyers and politicians make the rules (based on a fundamental set of rules like the constitution and they are designed in general, for the betterment/safety of society)
Juries, on a case by case basis, determine from facts germane to that specific case, if someone did something wrong. Unrelated to the law, but based on morals that the law likely supports.

Sure, I'm over simplifying it, but really that's how I view it. If 12 independent people tell me I did something wrong, society has determined I did something unacceptable to society at that time. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Society changes over time (take the old crazy ass laws that are still on the books today as a perfect example of that type of change) and juries should be able to ignore that shit.

Just because something is a law, doesn't mean it's irrefutable.It sounds like you are conflating "justice" and "what society [publicly] deems acceptable". Would you say that's an accurate observation?

[EasternBrand]

It sounds like you are conflating "justice" and "what society [publicly] deems acceptable". Would you say that's an accurate observation?

Surely societal mores have a substantial role in the definition of justice. The two cannot be entirely divorced.

But true help you won't get from the police. For justice, we must go to Don Corleone.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Aren't the roles police and politicians play in this process kind of pointless if juries are supposed to disregard laws anyways in favor of morals?

No, they aren't pointless. We still need policing, and still need laws. My point is a jury should be able to look at a specific case and make a decision from the case itself. Sure, the law comes in to play. It's the reason a person comes into the justice system in the first place. But 12 peers should be able to look at what a person did and determine if it requires a penalty or not without needing twelve lawbooks on why x is against the law.

I'm not advocating complete disregard for the law, nor am I for complete adherance to the law. There has to be common sense in place is all. Take the recent supreme court finding that the church here in Kansas has the right to picket US Military funerals. Ok, I get they should be able to voice their opinion. And there are laws saying they can do it. But if one of the douchebags picketed my brothers funeral and I got in my car and drove over 12 of them, I hope a jury finds me innocent by reason of completely sane homicide.

:)

[TheEschaton]

See, now I'd not be okay with a jury nullifying that example, because you premeditatedly murdered someone. There are specific defenses to murder, like self-defense, but "the victim was distasteful to me" isn't one of them.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

LOL, and I was not serious. Killing people is bad, I get that.

Although, were I one of the jury in that specific case... I would have an incredibly hard time finding fault with the driver of the car. Actually, thinking on it, I'd pardon them and have a parade in front of THEIR funeral, had I the power.

[Tgo01]

I understand your example was in jest (well, mostly) but what if someone murdered a homosexual and the jury felt that murdering homosexuals isn't a crime in their eyes, would you have a problem if they let the man go for that reasoning?

Or what if someone clubbed you over the head and stole your wallet but the jury feels it's okay to steal from someone if they're hungry, would that be a problem?

And TheEschaton can't answer that last one, from what I hear he would willingly hand over his wallet to the mugger and ask him to join him for lunch.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I understand your example was in jest (well, mostly) but what if someone murdered a homosexual and the jury felt that murdering homosexuals isn't a crime in their eyes, would you have a problem if they let the man go for that reasoning?

Or what if someone clubbed you over the head and stole your wallet but the jury feels it's okay to steal from someone if they're hungry, would that be a problem?

And TheEschaton can't answer that last one, from what I hear he would willingly hand over his wallet to the mugger and ask him to join him for lunch.

Was it a male homosexual or one of those lipstick lesbians?

See, I think you threw out common sense in your counter argument. I don't think a jury would do that. I guess I have too much faith in humanity. I still sincerely believe at their core people are good. I believe when slavery was allowed, people KNEW it was bad. Good people don't do bad things.

I know that isn't always the case, and I wish it was. That's all really. I guess I"m an idealist.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, that's idiotic, a jury of 12 white people in the South in the 1950s wasn't full of secret good will towards black people.

[AnticorRifling]

Yeah, that's idiotic, a jury of 12 white people in the South in the 1950s wasn't full of secret good will towards black people.

You don't know that racist!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yeah, that's idiotic, a jury of 12 white people in the South in the 1950s wasn't full of secret good will towards black people.

I love you man, even if you are brown and a tree hugging, limp wristed faggot.

HUGZ

[Tgo01]

See, I think you threw out common sense in your counter argument. I don't think a jury would do that.

This goes back to my original argument, who decides which laws are just and should be upheld and which ones shouldn't? 12 random people or the politicians the majority of people voted to be in office to represent them and do what they think is in their best interest?

[Latrinsorm]

Surely societal mores have a substantial role in the definition of justice. The two cannot be entirely divorced.They can, should be, are, and will be. Relying on societal mores is for the Greeks.
See, I think you threw out common sense in your counter argument. I don't think a jury would do that. I guess I have too much faith in humanity. I still sincerely believe at their core people are good. I believe when slavery was allowed, people KNEW it was bad. Good people don't do bad things.Of course people KNEW it was bad, the point is that they did it anyway. Why wouldn't they? Finding Joe-Bob guilty isn't going to bring anyone back to life, and if doing so clearly endangers the lives of the jurors, it would be borderline suicidal to do the right thing.

Good people do bad things when the perceived alternative is worse. Again, why wouldn't they?

[Clove]

I understand your example was in jest (well, mostly) but what if someone murdered a homosexual and the jury felt that murdering homosexuals isn't a crime in their eyes, would you have a problem if they let the man go for that reasoning?Or conversely let's assume a man and his family is fired upon in public and (being armed) he returns fire and kills the assailant. According to a summary CT statutes (CGS 53a-19b) concerning the use of deadly force for self defense:

The law establishes special rules for using deadly force to defend one's self or another person. Specifically, the law prohibits anyone from using such force unless he or she (1) reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm and (2) knows he or she cannot avoid the need to use deadly force by retreating. But the law specifies that a person does not have to retreat before using deadly force if he or she is in his or her dwelling or workplace.
It's convincingly argued that he and his family knew that they could have retreated (making his use of deadly force illegal) but the jury nullifies the charges considering the circumstances (and what they themselves might have done if presented with the same circumstances law or none).

Jury nullification is, essentially, civil disobedience which should always be used cautiously and can always be used "wrongly". I do believe that it is an important balance to the imperfection of laws and the potential abuse of government, however, despite its potential for mayhem.

[Tgo01]

It's convincingly argued that he and his family knew that they could have retreated (making his use of deadly force illegal) but the jury nullifies the charges considering the circumstances (and what they themselves might have done if presented with the same circumstances law or none).

They didn't disregard the law because they found it unreasonable, quite the opposite, they disagreed with the argument the prosecution laid before them and actually agreed with the law.

[EasternBrand]

They can, should be, are, and will be. Relying on societal mores is for the Greeks.

I'm not saying that the two are equal, but if you really don't believe that the concept of justice incorporates the attitudes and beliefs of a democratic society, then where does justice come from? Is it an eternal thing, separate from humanity? Does it come from God, or the Earth's molten core, or what?

...those are the only choices.

[Keller]

where does justice come from? . . . molten core . . ?

It's clear that Majordomo got what was coming to him.

[~Rocktar~]

It's clear that Majordomo got what was coming to him.

I don't know which is more sad, the fact that I get that reference and it made me laugh, or the fact that we share something in common.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not saying that the two are equal, but if you really don't believe that the concept of justice incorporates the attitudes and beliefs of a democratic society, then where does justice come from? Is it an eternal thing, separate from humanity? Does it come from God, or the Earth's molten core, or what?

...those are the only choices.Inherent to reason. I don't know if I would say separate from humanity, but I would certainly say if there were another race of rational beings they would have the same innate understanding of justice. I'm not sure what you mean by "democratic society", and I want to stress that this is a serious question.

[Gan]

Judges should decide guilt or innocence. And and and the judge should carry out the execution too.
OK Ned Stark.


I am only against YOUR freedom of speech.
LOL

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but the 14th amendment overruled Dred Scott.

Brown overrulled Plessy.

Sincerely,
JD/BA in African American Studies.
LOL x 2



Us natural lawyers
WTF is a "natural" lawyer?

[Clove]

They didn't disregard the law because they found it unreasonable, quite the opposite, they disagreed with the argument the prosecution laid before them and actually agreed with the law.Fine. It's a fact that the family knew they could have retreated.

[Tgo01]

Fine. It's a fact that the family knew they could have retreated.

A fact according to who? Unless the family admitted they knew they could have retreated but decided to kill the guy anyway I don't see how you can say it was fact.

This is why we have juries and a justice system to decide guilt and innocence.

[Clove]

A fact according to who? Unless the family admitted they knew they could have retreated but decided to kill the guy anyway I don't see how you can say it was fact.

This is why we have juries and a justice system to decide guilt and innocence.A fact the prosecution sufficiently proved. And in CT it's been proven on many occasions so for the argument you'll just have to assume that it's provable. In fact you can even assume that the father admitted that he knew there was a possible retreat but he wasn't willing to risk being followed and shot [at] so, in fear for his life and the lives of his family he took what he believed was the surest option; he shot the assailant.

[Clove]

WTF is a "natural" lawyer?I believe what the E is trying to say is that Keller makes him feel like a natural lawyer.

[TheEschaton]

There are two main schools of thought in modern legal philosophy, that law derives its authority from being made through the proper procedure and its own making (legal positivism), and that law derives its authority from reflecting something immutable (Truth, with a capital T) outside human society, IE, "from nature," or natural law.

The positivists think that those immutable things, if they exist, are unknowable with any certainty by human beings, and thus put their trust in human beings making just laws because they were justly made. The natural law folks find the positivists just as naive to believe that human power and law-making is incorruptible.

-TheE-

[Tgo01]

A fact the prosecution sufficiently proved. And in CT it's been proven on many occasions so for the argument you'll just have to assume that it's provable.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept of this whole 'jury nullification' thing. Someone may use self defense proportionate to the threat they are facing, so you can't shot someone who is threatening you with their fists, but you can shot someone who is threatening you with a gun. According to you there is another stipulation (at least in CT) where one cannot use deadly force even if being threatened with deadly force if there is a chance to escape.

So your scenario is someone is threatening a family with a gun and the father shoots the guy. It is somehow 'proven' that the family had a chance to escape but if the jury finds the guy innocent it is 'jury nullification'? I thought jury nullification was if the jury disregards at least part of the law for whatever reason. But that's just not the case in the scenario you are providing. They are not disregarding the law at all. They just felt the prosecution didn't make their case that the family knew they had a chance to escape unharmed (how one would even prove that as fact is beyond me) thus they followed the law and said he used the right amount of force to defend himself and his family.


In fact you can even assume that the father admitted that he knew there was a possible retreat but he wasn't willing to risk being followed and shot [at] so, in fear for his life and the lives of his family he took what he believed was the surest option; he shot the assailant.

That's called murder. You don't shoot someone because you are afraid they are going to follow you. If the father knew he could escape he should have escaped and called the police.

[Clove]

That's called murder. You don't shoot someone because you are afraid they are going to follow you. If the father knew he could escape he should have escaped and called the police.You're really that simple. It must be liberating in some senses.

[Tgo01]

You're really that simple. It must be liberating in some senses.

I'm sorry you feel as though you can murder someone and get away with it because you feel they might follow you.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sorry you feel as though you can murder someone and get away with it because you feel they might follow you.

Someone shooting at me and me returning fire and killing them isn't murder.

[Tgo01]

Someone shooting at me and me returning fire and killing them isn't murder.

Except that's not the scenario Clove gave us.

[Clove]

I'm sorry you feel as though you can murder someone and get away with it because you feel they might follow you.I'm sorry you're this obtuse. That's not what I stated at all.

Except that's not the scenario Clove gave us.It is precisely the scenario I gave you.

[Tgo01]

It is precisely the scenario I gave you.


In fact you can even assume that the father admitted that he knew there was a possible retreat but he wasn't willing to risk being followed and shot [at] so, in fear for his life and the lives of his family he took what he believed was the surest option; he shot the assailant.

There is a world of difference between shooting someone because you're defending yourself and knowing you can escape but deciding you are going to kill the guy anyway 'just in case.' Just in case of what? Either you can escape safely or you cannot. You seem to want to argue this point of yours from both sides.


I'm sorry you're this obtuse. That's not what I stated at all.

I'm sorry you're this obtuse and can't even keep up with your own arguments.

[Clove]

There is a world of difference between shooting someone because you're defending yourself and knowing you can escape but deciding you are going to kill the guy anyway 'just in case.' Just in case of what? Either you can escape safely or you cannot. You seem to want to argue this point of yours from both sides.You're over qualifying. The law doesn't require that know that you can escape safely it requires that you know that you can retreat- i.e. the gunman isn't blocking the only exit.

But since you consider it murder, let's assume a similar scenario in a state that doesn't place a retreat clause on the use deadly force for self-defense. This time the man and his family are standing next to an unlocked armored car and the police sirens can be heard around the corner, but the father shoots and kills his assailant anyway. According to the law in that state he's justified, but according to you he's still a murderer (since he has a retreat).

[Tgo01]

You're over qualifying. The law doesn't require that know that you can escape safely it requires that you know that you can retreat- i.e. the gunman isn't blocking the only exit.

Might want to read what you quoted earlier again:


(2) knows he or she cannot avoid the need to use deadly force by retreating

The person has to know he or she cannot avoid the need to use deadly force. If one thinks they can make it to the exit but can't get far before the gunman shoots them then they know they cannot avoid the need for deadly force.


But since you consider it murder, let's assume a similar scenario in a state that doesn't place a retreat clause on the use deadly force for self-defense. This time the man and his family are standing next to an unlocked armored car and the police sirens can be heard around the corner, but the father shoots and kills his assailant anyway. According to the law in that state he's justified, but according to you he's still a murderer (since he has a retreat).

So you've gone from twisting the words of the law to suit your needs to twisting my words and making up complete bullshit huh? That was pretty fast work too, less than 24 hours.

[AnticorRifling]

But since you consider it murder, let's assume a similar scenario in a state that doesn't place a retreat clause on the use deadly force for self-defense. This time the man and his family are standing next to an unlocked armored car and the police sirens can be heard around the corner, but the father shoots and kills his assailant anyway. According to the law in that state he's justified, but according to you he's still a murderer (since he has a retreat).

Lol wut?

[Clove]

Lol wut?Did I stutter?

[Clove]

That's called murder. You don't shoot someone because you are afraid they are going to follow you. If the father knew he could escape he should have escaped and called the police.
So you've gone from twisting the words of the law to suit your needs to twisting my words and making up complete bullshit huh? That was pretty fast work too, less than 24 hours.Actually you've been doing the twisting ever since the question began. So how about it, what if that stipulation for self-defense is absent but it's obvious the defender could have safely retreated. Are you going to let him get away with murder as you put it?

[Tgo01]

Actually you've been doing the twisting ever since the question began. So how about it, what if that stipulation for self-defense is absent but it's obvious the defender could have safely retreated. Are you going to let him get away with murder as you put it?

Actually I haven't done any twisting or back peddling during this whole conversation. If you would actually read and try to understand my argument you would have the answer to your question here and wouldn't need me to spell it out for you yet again.