Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification

[Tony]

But surely you understand that the risk of that is the nature of the beast with jury nullification.

Absolutely, and I'm willing to accept that. I think it's better for the guilty to go free than the innocent to go to prison. What do you think?

Why not skip the dangerous step of encouraging juries to ignore unjust laws and just try to convince a majority of the people to elect legislators who will repeal those laws?

Because it's more dangerous to rely solely on the legislature to correct injustices. Especially when the legislature is corrupt and has an interest in upholding the unjust laws.

 

[crimresearch]

Crim raises a valid point. The difficulties with jury nullification are based upon an answer which you specifically elimininated from consideration ("They broke the law" is not a valid answer"). But that is a valid consideration. It speaks to the need to change the law, not change the court system. The law applies to all and is not a gamble to any, the nullification system is a gamble to everyone.

The USSC has ruled against medical marijuana, and other aspects of this particular issue, as recently as this June, in Raich v. Gonzales.

It seems likely that neither they, nor Congress is going to be changing their mind on that any time soon.

So like it or not, 'Because they broke the law' is going to continue to be the reason that people are found guilty under the federal statutes...not just on pot, but also on conspiracy, and other areas where federal prosecutors have an easier time limiting what a jury may consider.

Unforunately, 'jury nullification' is not only its own slippery slope, but it has the additional drawback of being a useful excuse for Congress to grab for even more judicial power...just as they have attempted with mandatory sentencing while claiming 'judicial activism'.

 

[shanek]

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.

Amazing how people arguing against jury nullification always cop to that ONE example, while ignoring the fact that (as the portion I've hilighted shows) it was a problem with jury selection: blacks weren't allowed to sit on juries. If they had, I feel comfortable saying that you would have seen quite different results.

The history of jury nullification shows that it has been a friend to justice; from the jury that refused to convict William Penn, to the Zinger case establishing truth as a defense to libel, to the acquittals of John Hancock and other "smugglers," to the acquittals of people who violated the Alien and Sedition Act and later the Fugitive Slave Act, to the acquittals of people who drank alcohol during Prohibition, to those who have acquitted physicians who assist suicides.

And the ONLY counterexample people can come up with is the white juries, which proves that the jury selection process needs to be fair and open, NOT that jury nullification is wrong.

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.

But the point is that they should have been allowed to hear the reasons why Rosenthal did what he did. In any other trial, even a murder trial, the defendant would have gotten to say that. The Rosenthal trial was a despicable tragedy of justice—and it's the big government prosecutor and judge who are to blame, not the jury.

 

[shanek]

Drug prohibition laws are stupid and archaic.

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

And criminal drug dealers. And the people who launder the money for them. Either of which might be some of the very law enforcement and prison guards you mentioned...

 

[shanek]

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

Yeah, that happened after a flood of complaints to his office by concerned citizens.

 

[shanek]

Crim raises a valid point. The difficulties with jury nullification are based upon an answer which you specifically elimininated from consideration ("They broke the law" is not a valid answer"). But that is a valid consideration. It speaks to the need to change the law, not change the court system. The law applies to all and is not a gamble to any, the nullification system is a gamble to everyone.

No, he doesn't. Because it's a point that assumes the conclusion. "Jury nullification is wrong." "Why?" "Because they should convict based on the law." The "answer" is nothing more than a restatement of the claim.

 

[shanek]

One problem with Rosenthal's situation and the federal laws on marijuana is that jury nullification doesn't solve the problem. Another problem is that one man is making the decision to overrule the law of the land. You see this as "justice" because you happen to agree with that one man's decision.If a law is unjust, then the law needs to be nullified at the voting booth. In this case, the federal voting booth.

Should truth be a defense to libel, or not? We have that in our system directly because of jury nullification.

 

[shanek]

But surely you understand that the risk of that is the nature of the beast with jury nullification.

Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be put in prison.

It's an absolute power, absent revoking double jeopardy (which I'm sure you oppose). There's literally nothing that can be done about a poor jury decision. So either you set up the judiciary to discourage the practice or you don't.

Look at history and tell me if we are more or less free because of jury nullification. Look at what juries nullified and what effects it had on our judicial system. Then look at what started happening once jury nullification started being discouraged.

By the very nature of the thing it's completely unrealistic to expect the government to notify a jury of its nullification powers in cases where their doing so would be adverse to the interests of the government itself and not in other instances.

The judicial branch is not supposed to serve the interests of the government. They're supposed to serve the interests of justice. Where the two are in conflict, justice is supposed to triumph.

So aren't you right back to wanting to fighting at the legislature? Why not skip the dangerous step of encouraging juries to ignore unjust laws and just try to convince a majority of the people to elect legislators who will repeal those laws?

Y'know, it's amazing...you start talking about electing reprsentatives who understand the Constitution, and the statists keep whining that it's the job of the courts to strike down laws...then you start talking about using juries to stop the enforcement of bad laws, and then all of a sudden that power's back in Congress's hands. Ridiculous.

 

[crimresearch]

No, he doesn't. Because it's a point that assumes the conclusion. "Jury nullification is wrong." "Why?" "Because they should convict based on the law." The "answer" is nothing more than a restatement of the claim.

If you have to restate someone else's comments to something that differs significantly from their actual position, any conclusion you build from that is worthless.

Much like your restatement and completely erroneous conclusion above.

What I actually said was that jury nullification can be a short term good, but it creates (like many things that exist outside of an idealized fantasy world), consequences.

Dealing with the reality, instead of reframing it, is a far more productive way to address the issue.

 

[Manny]

Any response I'd have to shanek's remarks other than "What Crim said" would get me suspended from this forum. At an absolute minimum. So, "What Crim said.

 

[shanek]

What I actually said was that jury nullification can be a short term good, but it creates (like many things that exist outside of an idealized fantasy world), consequences.

Such as? And please don't bring up the ridiculous "white juries" example. Show me the consequences from nullification. I've shown you some, such as the freedom of numerous slaves and the ability to use truth as a defense to libel. Where are yours?

 

[crimresearch]

The only person bringing up the ridiculous white juries argument here is Shanek, and he hasn't provided a single shred of evidence in support of the notion that black people are not allowed to serve on juries in America today.

And since I've already posited consequences, and Shanek is in denial about that as well, I think we can safely assume that it will be up to other posters to hold a useful discussion on the matter.

 

[Tony]

The only person bringing up the ridiculous white juries argument here is Shanek, and he hasn't provided a single shred of evidence in support of the notion that black people are not allowed to serve on juries in America today.

And since I've already posited consequences, and Shanek is in denaial about that as well, I think we can safely assume that it will be up to other posters to hold a useful discussion on the matter.

Dude, just STFU. You have no idea what you're talking about or what is even going on in this thread. Manny brought up white juries before shaneK. Shanek was addressing his argument. If you have beef with that "ridiculous" argument, take it up with manny.

 

[crimresearch]

Manny mentioned it in passing, the only person who keeps bringing it up, and falsely claiming that others beside Manny are saying it is Shanek.

Can we just safely assume that 'Shut the F*** Up' is going to be the sum total of your contribution to any rational dicourse?

 

[shanek]

The only person bringing up the ridiculous white juries argument here is Shanek

Now, that's just a lie...

and he hasn't provided a single shred of evidence in support of the notion that black people are not allowed to serve on juries in America today.

Probably because I never claimed that.

So, all crimresearch can do is lie...as usual.

 

[LostAngeles]

How come the city of Oakland was not tried in court?

If it was Law & Order, Jack McCoy would have found a way to do it. Sadly, this is real life and our Federal prosecutors aren't L&O writers.

Because really, who do you prosecute? The person who deputized? The city government? The people who voted the law in? The people who wrote it?

Now that would be a good test case.

 

[Beerina]

Since Rosenthal was in a federal court for breaking a federal law, that may be why the jury was not allowed to hear about him growing pot for the city. It didn't matter if the city said it was okay, he was breaking federal law and this was a federal trial, so California law was moot and had no bearing on the case.

If a person is being accused of violation federal law, you have to determine if he was guilty of breaking the federal law. If the jury had said he was not guilty of breaking that federal law because he was growing it legally under California law, they would have been wrong to do so. Was he or was he not guilty of the crime for which he was accused? Yes.

So it's wrong to bring up that one stole a loaf of bread to feed one's demonstrably starving family?

Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

If prosecutors can bring in motive to convict then why in god's name can they keep motive out when it benefits the defendent? What @$$hole thunk that idea up?

 

[crimresearch]

Now, that's just a lie...

Probably because I never claimed that.

So, all crimresearch can do is lie...as usual.

Is this your idea of reality?

I never brought this up, you did Shanek.

Are you afraid to discuss the facts?

 

[shanek]

Is this your idea of reality?

I never brought this up, you did Shanek.

Are you afraid to discuss the facts?

Stop your whining. I have brought up:

• The fact that the one argument presented against jury nullification was actually a problem with jury selection
• The fact that jury nullification has been used to protect free speech
• The fact that jury nullification resulted in the freedom of numerous slaves
• The fact that jury nullification resulted in truth being a defense to libel
• The fact that jury nullification helped to end Prohibition
• The fact that jury nullification would have freed Rosenthal had they been given all the facts (all of this in just my first post!)
• The fact that your answer "they broke the law" isn't valid because it assumes the conclusion
• The fact that the judicial branch is supposed to support the interests of justice, not government

Those are FACTS that I have presented, all of which remain unanswered. I have also asked the following questions:

• Should truth be a defense to libel or not?
• What are the "consequences" of jury nullification that you mentioned?
• Once you have shown the negtive consequences of jury nullification, can you show that they outweigh the positive consequences that I mentioned

These questions remain unanswered. So, I have presented facts and questions, while you have presented nothing but lies.

 

[crimresearch]

And yet mysteriously, you can't present a single quote of mine supporting your claim that I said any of those things.

And you are stull running from what I actually posted.

Have fun playing with your imaginary opponents Shanek.