What's your view on jury nullification?

[Nye Bevan]

By which I mean, when a juror deviates from the jury instructions supplied by the judge and instead applies their own conscience. For example, someone using medical marijuana might be technically guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but a juror could nonetheless vote to acquit if they believe that the law is unjust. Or a juror might believe someone is guilty of murder, but lacking reasonable doubt per the jury instructions, might vote to convict anyway.

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I always oppose jury nullification. The judge's instructions to the jury should always be followed to the letter.
	2 (18%)
	I support jury nullification in certain circumstances when used to acquit a defendant, but not to convict a defendant.
	8 (73%)
	I support jury nullification in certain circumstances both to acquit a defendant AND to convict a defendant.
	1 (9%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[ZombieHorde]

1. Debating between option two and option three. nt

[pintobean]

2. I suggest we medicate and meditate

on the matter.

[ZombieHorde]

3. I just finished my pizza, so the timing is perfect.

I'll get right on it.

[Hoyt]

4. When you are an aggressive, bigot with a gun, you shouldn't be able to twist the law and get off.

Those characteristics alone should be enough to put one in jail when they shoot an unarmed black kid.

Truthfully, I would not have been too upset if they had shipped Zman's worthless ass to Guantanomo.

[Nye Bevan]

6. OK, because of the Zimmerman case we have had DUers call for the end of the jury system,

for the end of the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle, and for the end of the right to self-defense.

But this is the first post I have seen that uses the Zimmerman case to call for Guantanamo Bay to remain open.

[Hoyt]

9. As long as it's there, use it for murderous bigots with guns.

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2013, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. Get me on a jury in a drug trial, then ask me.

[GlashFordan]

7. Why have laws then?

Let the public decide guilt... Great idea.

[morningfog]

14. Um, that is exactly what a jury does, decides guilt.

[GlashFordan]

18. Jury judges guilt

Based on state law and jury instructions.

[morningfog]

20. Juries decide facts and guilt.

Judges instruct on the law. Juries make all determinations of facts, which to believe, weight to be given, the guilt of the defendant.

[GlashFordan]

21. There are reasons why a jury is given instructions

Juries can't be given too much flexibility. Imagine a jury in Texas. A man is accused of molesting a child. There is a lot of evidence that indicates he wasn't even there at the time. But the jury thinks the man is gay because he has a male partner. Is the jury allowed to use their own bias or emotion or morality to find guilt?

No.

The bottom line is... No matter who despicable Z is... No matter how strongly you feel he is a murderer, the evidence to find him guilty was not there. In fact the jury found that Z used self defense according to Florida law.

Does everyone understand if this incident happened in a different state, Z could be going to prison.

[JackRiddler]

17. Wrong question.

Why have juries? Why not algorithms? Some decisions are given to juries by law, in part because of a longstanding awareness that no two cases are the same and already covered in the law.

[mick063]

8. I refuse to be part of a process that puts a man in jail for owning marijuana

Possession of an assault rifle is a much greater danger to our youth.

I will not partake in the hypocrisy.

If a man makes profit from marijuana and does not pay taxes on it, I will convict for evasion of taxes, but only if the infrastructure is in place where he can pay taxes without being charged for possession.

If a man steals marijuana, I will convict him for the monetary value of the theft, but not for the possession.

If a man distributes marijuana to minors, I will convict if the penalty falls into the same parameters as distribution of alcohol to minors.

If a man intoxicates an unknowing person against their will with marijuana, I will convict him for that act, but not for the possession.

I have thought this through.

I would likely declare my stance early in the jury selection process and not be selected to pass judgment. I will not have the incarceration for possession on my conscious.

By the way, I have not used marijuana for a few decades and I passed a job dependent urinalysis this morning, living in a state that has come close to fully legalizing it.

[reformist2]

10. Interesting. I thought jury nullification only worked one way - that is, acquittal, not conviction.

[Nye Bevan]

11. That's what Wikipedia says.

But as the poll shows, several people differ on this issue.

[DrDan]

19. nope - "A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law"

from Wikipedia

but I am disheartened that so many here would do that - admitting they would imprison GZ without "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" because they "believe" him guilty. The potential of finding an innocent person guilty does not seem to be a concern to them - lack of evidence does not matter, their visceral need to punish him does.

[davidpdx]

12. I didn't know it could go both ways as well

I think it's hard to say "I'm for jury nullification in a conviction, but not an acquittal."

The other problem with jury nullification is a judge doesn't have to tell the jury they can nullify a verdict. One of the jurors would have to be aware of the jury nullification rule prior to the trial.

[reformist2]

13. A jury that convicts without a law isn't really nullifying, it's making up its own law, imo.

Personally, such convictions sound illegal - and unconstitutional, quite frankly.

[morningfog]

15. It's true. Convicting contrary to the state meeting its burden is not jury nullification

and can result in a judgement to set aside the verdict.

[Ms. Toad]

16. If a jury convicted when the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt

the judge can set aside the conviction, or it can be set aside on appeal.

On the other hand, the court can't retry someone found not guilty. So you are correct that jury nullification really only works one way, because there are at least theoretically failsafe provisions to prevent a jury from convicting a person who is legally innocent. People just don't realize that term doesn't mean what they think it means...

But the reality is that people who are legally innocent are convicted, serve time, and are occasionally executed all the time, even when juries aren't deliberately ignoring the law to reach a guilty verdict.