Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163877,00.html

In February of 2003, a California jury convicted marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal of growing marijuana, in violation of federal law.

What the jury didn't know — and wasn't allowed to hear — was that Rosenthal was not only growing the marijuana for medical patients, he was growing the stuff for the city of Oakland. After the trial, the jury was outraged. "'I'm sorry' doesn't begin to cover it," one told the New York Times. Said the foreman, "It's the most horrible mistake I've ever made in my entire life."

As you read this, a 46-year old paraplegic named Richard Paey is serving a 25-year prison sentence in Florida. Paey suffered a bad car accident followed by a botched back surgery, and both left him in incredible pain. Paey, a father, discovered that he could relieve his pain by taking large doses of tightly regulated opiate painkillers, but the quantity of the drugs he needed exceeded that which his doctors could legally prescribed. Paey felt he had no choice but to break the law to get the medication he needed to live a normal life, and he was convicted of obtaining the drugs by using a photocopy of the last prescription his doctor wrote for him.

Prosecutors admitted Paey never sold his medication. But they charged him with distribution anyway, under Drug War laws stating that anyone possessing a given amount of a controlled substance is automatically guilty of distribution. Here again, jurors expressed disappointment in how the law gave them no choice but to return an unjust verdict.

Please tell why the people in the cases above deserve to be in prison.

Hint: "They broke the law" is not a valid answer.

 

[Checkmite]

Although I'm certain that the pain would've disappeared, I don't think anybody under the influence of "an amount exceeding what doctors can legally prescribe" can be accused of living a "normal life" - unless you call doping yourself into a drooling piece of limp meat normal. It's not exactly Extra Strength Tylenol.

Now, instead of at least getting some relief (even if, in his opinion, it wasn't enough) his gambit fell through and he ended up in jail, where he will be getting hardly any relief at all. Why can't people think a couple of steps ahead and save themselves a lot of trouble? Jesus. I wouldn't pick this genius as a poster boy for any cause.

As for that first story, though, that's insane. If I were the jury foreman I'd be three types of pissed, too.

 

[Manny]

Whist I think that, properly exercised by a principled jury, nullification can be an important additional check on the legistlature and executive, I believe that your thread title is not correct. Most often jury nullification has been used to render manifestly unjust verdicts, like white juries refusing to convict white people of crimes against blacks. That's why it got the reputation it has and one of the reasons why the judicial system has been so against letting juries realize their power.

Also, the first case is not one where jury nullification would justly come into play. If the jury should have been exposed to some material fact that's a good issue for appeal because lack of that fact might have convinced the jury to reach the "wrong" verdict. But with the facts of the case as presented to them at the time, at least as outlined in that brief opinion article, they believed they made the right decision, not that they were forced to render an unjust verdict.

 

[Manny]

Aw, pfft. Now I notice that your thread title is merely taken from the column you cited. So in the above please replace "your thread title" with "the column's title." Sorry about that.

 

[Tony]

But with the facts of the case as presented to them at the time, at least as outlined in that brief opinion article, they believed they made the right decision, not that they were forced to render an unjust verdict.

Same thing since they were prevented from hearing facts relevant to the case.

Not to mention the fact that it would be a case for jury nullification regardless since laws against marijuana are fundamentally unjust.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Drug prohibition laws are stupid and archaic.

The only groups that strongly support the drug law status quo are law enforcement and prison guards.

Charlie (gotta watch out for number 1) Monoxide

 

[crimresearch]

'They broke the law' is not a valid answer?

OK...so what factors should a jury be allowed to base their 'guilty' or 'not guilty' verdicts on?

 

[AmateurScientist]

Drug prohibition laws are stupid and archaic.

The only groups that strongly support the drug law status quo are law enforcement and prison guards.

Charlie (gotta watch out for number 1) Monoxide

Charlie,

I know a lot of law enforcement officers who think drug possession, at least of marijuana, should be decriminalized.

AS

 

[Tony]

OK...so what factors should a jury be allowed to base their 'guilty' or 'not guilty' verdicts on?

That's not what I asked.

I asked why these guys deserve to be in prison.

 

[crimresearch]

Actually you asked why they deserve to be in prison, if 'they broke the law' isn't allowed as an answer.
Are you just asking rhetorical questions or do you have a point about jury nullification?

 

[Tony]

Actually you asked why they deserve to be in prison, if 'they broke the law' isn't allowed as an answer.

And apparently it's a question you can't answer.

 

[crimresearch]

Of course I can answer it...and no matter what, the answer is irrelevant to reality, so why bother?

It is a classic sophomoric fallacy setup, with a loaded question.

Did you have a useful point regarding jury nullifcation or a related topic?

(Hint: 'Yes" is not allowed as a valid answer).

 

[Manny]

Same thing since they were prevented from hearing facts relevant to the case.

No, they're entirely different.

Take the situation of a jury who convicts someone of killing a cop. Perfectly legit, right? Then after the trial the jury learns that the guy killed a rogue insane cop who was on a killing spree and that by doing so the guy saved twenty orphans and fifty puppies. Now the jury regrets the verdict. Nullification has nothing to do with their regret. If the undisclosed facts had not been true they would have continued to be satisfied with their prior verdict.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tony
Not to mention the fact that it would be a case for jury nullification regardless since laws against marijuana are fundamentally unjust.

---

One might reasonably argue jury nullification is appropriate in marijuana cases, but that's not what happened in that case. The jury was perfectly content, on the facts we have here, to convict for the crime when they weren't aware that he was doing it on contract to the State. Their perception of the fundamental injustice that was done is different from the one you'd choose to place upon them.

 

[Tony]

Of course I can answer it...

No you can't. Otherwise, you would have answered it already. You're using your typical tactic of beating around the bush with BS and red herrings.

 

[Tony]

No, they're entirely different.

Take the situation of a jury who convicts someone of killing a cop. Perfectly legit, right? Then after the trial the jury learns that the guy killed a rogue insane cop who was on a killing spree and that by doing so the guy saved twenty orphans and fifty puppies. Now the jury regrets the verdict. Nullification has nothing to do with their regret. If the undisclosed facts had not been true they would have continued to be satisfied with their prior verdict.

Ok, I see your point.

I still think I have a point though that they, in your words, "were forced to render an unjust verdict", because they were purposefully prevented from hearing information relevant to the case.

 

[crimresearch]

Why do you come and post on a skeptic's forum, if you consider logic, reason, and pointing out logical fallacies to be 'BS', as you so clearly stated above?

The fact is, I'm against marijuana laws, and would be happy to have a reasonable discussion of them, or other things wrong with the CJ system.....but you don't want to have a discussion on that, you want to start off with a dishonest question, so you can then leap to the dishonest assertion that anyone who pointed out your fallacies must be 'pro-drug laws'.

Its a tired old trick Tony, and you've been called on it over, and over, and over, and over, by plenty of other folks besides myself..and yet here you are again with the same irrational games.....let me know if anyone falls for it.

 

[Manny]

That's true. You'll be happy to know that the judge recognized that and sentenced Mr. Rosenthal to one day in jail.

 

[Tony]

Why do you come and post on a skeptic's forum, if you consider logic, reason, and pointing out logical fallacies to be 'BS', as you so clearly stated above?

The fact is, I'm against marijuana laws, and would be happy to have a reasonable discussion of them, or other things wrong with the CJ system.....but you don't want to have a discussion on that, you want to start off with a dishonest question, so you can then leap to the dishonest assertion that anyone who pointed out your fallacies must be 'pro-drug laws'.

Its a tired old trick Tony, and you've been called on it over, and over, and over, and over, by plenty of other folks besides myself..and yet here you are again with the same irrational games.....let me know if anyone falls for it.

Dude, just STFU.

 

[Tony]

That's true. You'll be happy to know that the judge recognized that and sentenced Mr. Rosenthal to one day in jail.

Really? I'll have to re-read the article.

 

[Manny]

The article failed to disclose that little fact. It also failed to discuss the long and disgusting history of juries using the "nullification" powers to let the perpetrators of lynchings go free.

If I were you I'd do a lot more research before embracing nullification as a proper avenue to seek your desired result of marijunana legalization. Juries can "nullify" by refusing to convict people who kill small-time dealers, too.