I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?

If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?

I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.

    Did you just make this part up because it sounds nice ?

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.

          • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?

            That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.

            This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.

              • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Can you clarify what you’re actually saying?

                If you’re trying to imply that a more moral person would see things your way, I couldn’t care less. It’s a pretty meaningless assertion.

                You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.

                That’s simply not how laws are intended to be applied. Democratically elected representatives debate moral considerations when designing laws. If you want criminal law to include an exemption for murderers of CEOs that you don’t like, you should write to your local rep I guess.

                In the mean time, jurors will just have to apply the law as it stands.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 hours ago

                  You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.

                  This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.

                  “We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.

                  The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.

                  Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.

                  While a judge can be legally obligated to issue a ruling inconsistent with his own moral code, a jury is NEVER obligated to return a verdict they believe to be unjust.

                  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.

                    As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just made up poppycock that sounds nice.

                    I’m sure that wherever that’s written down in the “rules” it also says all good dogs go to heaven right?

                    Anyhow, as we seem to have exhausted your repertoire of made up constitutional wisdom I think I’ll leave you to continue reassuring yourself that the founding fathers invented jury nullification and wanted Luigi to walk free.

                    While I look forward to reading your final parting dispensation of mythical wondery, I will not reply.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          I am able to support my claim, and I am doing so in our other conversation. The basis of my claim here relies on an understanding of the purpose and need for a layperson jury. My claim here arises naturally from that underlying point, which is better developed in our other thread.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              I wouldn’t say it that way, but I won’t say that is an inaccurate summarization.

              Our other conversation is a far more productive avenue of approach.