Our laws are too numerous, too harsh, some are unconstitutional, and this garbage pile of legal code continues to grow each year as politicians run on a "get tough on crime" platform and pro-Three Strikes Law activists push their hate. Nowhere is there redemption and rehabilitation anymore.
And unless this impacts us personally, who is going to acknowledge this problem and oppose it.
I know there are some out here who feel our laws are too draconian, but know that civil disobedience will only turn those same laws against us. Is the answer to over turn bad laws when sitting on juries? To exerise "jury nullification", a seldom-mentioned right of all citizens?
2007-12-31 00:00:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Jury nulification is nothing new American colonists were using Jury nulification to protest British laws and many ofthe founding fathers notably Jeferson wrote about how states and juries could go about nulifing laws.
2007-12-31 00:10:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Jury Nullification is the only legal way We the People can have a direct effect on how government works! Civil disobedience? More like Civil Revolt!
2007-12-31 02:06:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jury nullification is not in the Constitution explicitly. But it is a long-standing principle that a jury has to convict you. The law does not require the jury to say why they didn't do so.
I know that the one criminal jury on which I served would have nullified a part of a case except that we had a compromise position available. It is called a "responsive" verdict, where the jury can choose from two or more charges for the same crime and decide if one fits better than the other. In our case, it was a rape. We felt that the rape occurred and that the guy in question had used force to cause the woman to comply, but the precise language of the law didn't seem to cover "aggravated" rape. We had the option of "forcible" rape and agreed that was what had happened. We could also have chosen "simple" rape. Had we not had the options but instead had been limited to "aggravated" rape or nothing, I think we would have nullified.
When you see someone going free on a serious charge, it is not highly publicized as to whether a responsive verdict was available. Sometimes a DA will "shoot for the moon" and leave no other options open. One can argue that a nullification occurred when in fact the overly zealous DA just overcharged the case. Is that nullification by the jury or stupidity by the DA? To me it is a touch of both.
Is it civil disobedience? No, it is one of those "checks and balances" of our system - to stop overly zealous prosecutors from "throwing the book" at someone who clearly deserved a slap on the wrist instead of a life sentence in solitary confinement.
2007-12-31 01:49:36 · answer #3 · answered by The_Doc_Man 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Lawyers practice law in court. Juries, in high profile criminal cases, in California, and some other states, seem to have other agendas.
We must remember that a defendant is Innocent, until proven guilty.
Another travesty of justice is, to some extent, perpetrated by the media. The media seems to forget this fact (innocent until proven guilty) on occasion; ratings and circulation appear to be more important than a defendant's rights which should be protected until found guilty by a duly appointed jury.
One duty of citizenship to to answer the call to sit a jury. How may people try everything possible to get out of said duty, then complain about a jury's verdict?
The USA is not perfect, but it is, in my opinion, still ahead of whoever is in second place. The United States of America is, without any doubt, a land of opportunity. A lot of people are leaving their countries in boats or anyway possible seeking a better place to live, but none of them are leaving from here. As Richard Jeni, may he rest in peace, said, "50,000 illegal aliens can't be wrong!"
2007-12-31 00:49:09 · answer #4 · answered by Bwana 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Our legal system was established with the idea of jury nullification at it's core. If all that counted in court was the law and proof the accused had broken that law, you wouldn't need a jury. After all, the judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer know more about the law than the jury. They jury of 12 of your peers is put in place for one reason only - to keep people from being prosecuted by BAD law.
2007-12-31 00:41:04 · answer #5 · answered by Dick F 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Rehabilitation has never been a concern of the criminal justice system. It's there as a means of punishment. That's all it's ever been, and all it ever will be.
2007-12-31 00:12:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
To get off a jury, it is quite simple. Simply state you feel the defendant is guilty as hell, and you want the death penalty for him no matter what the crime. The Defense Lawyer will elect you to be removed from the jury.
2007-12-31 00:06:21 · answer #7 · answered by Nic T 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋