Is jury nullification not mob rule or democracy?

[Josh_LA]

If people can vote to override law or the judge, why bother going to court?

 

[torchbearer]

Safety Valve against tyranny and unjust laws... allows for circumstance to be important also.

 

[Sandra]

Then there is no law or consequence.

 

[torchbearer]

It also allows the jury to judge the law itself.
99% of the population hates jury duty.
I love it.

 

[Danke]

No.


Also, Grand Jury, the fourth branch of government:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...l-grand-jury-is-the-4th-branch-of-government/

 

[Mini-Me]

Safety Valve against tyranny and unjust laws... allows for circumstance to be important also.

Exactly. By the Founders' understanding of a jury trial, the very word "jury" carried with it the assumption that the jury had the power to judge both facts and law. Because the jury's deliberations are private and a not-guilty verdict cannot be overturned (except in cases where the defendant was never actually in jeopardy, e.g. bought-off juries) - both of which are inherent and necessary to a jury trial - a real jury naturally and implicitly has the power of nullification.

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

The question is, "Does a jury have a right to nullify the law?" My answer is threefold:

1. Do juries have the moral right to nullify the law for whatever damn reason they wish? No, they do not. For instance, it would be a miscarriage of justice for a jury to frivolously acquit a defendant due to prejudices against the victim or because the defendant is particularly good-looking. Unfortunately, the very nature of a jury trial generally allows juries to get away with this, because such broad and sweeping discretion is necessary and inseparable from the legitimate powers of the jury. To directly answer Josh_LA's question, this darker side of jury nullification does in fact introduce a limited element of "mob rule" and limited democracy to the legal system. Thankfully, this mob rule element has been rarely seen in recent years, and it's limited to matters of clemency (rather than condemnation), due to the fact that guilty verdicts require unanimous agreement and may be appealed thereafter. Furthermore, without allowing such privacy and discretion, the legal system would essentially be imposing directed verdicts upon defendants, rendering the jury nothing but the puppets of the judge. This cannot be allowed to happen, because judges are easily corrupted by special influences or totalitarian ideologies at odds with the actual law (especially if they gain power over the actual verdict). It's easier to corrupt judges than juries, because judges preside over many cases over the course of many years, not just one, and they also operate alone (it's easier to corrupt one person than many). In other words: Jury nullification (and therefore jury trials in general, because they are not legitimately separable) has its downside, but the downsides of judge-decided trials are much worse...and if we had no legal system at all, the mob justice emerging in its place would certainly dwarf the "mob rule" element of juries. Now, onto the upsides of jury nullification...
2. The jury DOES have a right and a responsibility to nullify unconstitutional laws, because they are essentially void non-laws...as the quote in torchbearer's signature elaborates. If a corrupt or stupid judge claims that an unconstitutional law is a law, does that actually make it a law? No, it does not, which is why juries have both the right and responsibility to judge for themselves whether a law is in fact legal with respect to the highest law of the land. In this sense, jury nullification can be used by jurors (the people) to uphold the law when government officials seek to bastardize it.
3. The jury also has a right and responsibility to nullify unjust laws, even if they are Constitutional (i.e. consistent with higher laws). After all, what is the true purpose of the jury's job, if not to deliver justice?

Practically speaking, we should be very thankful for the jury's power to nullify the law. After all, it provides the one and only direct check [within the legal, judicial, and political systems] the people have against government power! All other procedural checks rely on the active cooperation of someone within the government (at least at some level).

Furthermore, there's reason to believe that instances of jury nullification usually result in justice rather than miscarriages of justice: If enough people actually oppose a law that more than one person in a randomly-selected jury would nullify it to set a defendant free, then odds are, it was probably an unjust law to begin with (or it was being unjustly applied). Out of all the laws that carry criminal penalties, the truly just ones - such as those against murder, robbery, rape, etc. - generally enjoy almost unanimous support and agreement from the population at large.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It also allows the jury to judge the law itself.
99% of the population hates jury duty.
I love it.

Every freedom minded patriot should do everything they can to be placed on a jury.

Non violent drug, gun, tax or land cases, just for example, and hang that jury to Judgment Trump if need be.

 

[slothman]

I got called to be on a jury but I couldn't go for health reasons.
It seems like a boring job but that probably depends on the crime/civil case.

I don't know why people don't like it.
But then many people don't even vote.

 

[Mini-Me]

Every freedom minded patriot should do everything they can to be placed on a jury.

Non violent drug, gun, tax or land cases, just for example, and hang that jury to Judgment Trump if need be.

...what, like rig the jury lists? I'm not really aware of anything we can do to make jury selection any more likely.

 

[Anti Federalist]

...what, like rig the jury lists? I'm not really aware of anything we can do to make jury selection any more likely.

Be as bland and noncommittal as possible during the selection process.

 

[hillbilly123069]

This looks like a question for Sheriff Mack!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

In many states the court makes you pledge to judge only the facts of a case, or otherwise orients you to leave the law to the judge. This gives them the ability to prosecute you for perjury if you then do otherwise at trial. At the last jury duty pool I was part of I strenuously objected, and cited past law cases to back up jury nullification. The attorneys on BOTH sides tried to talk me out of it, finally suggesting that if I judged the law, they wouldn't know what criteria I used to reach a verdict. I was then excused from jury duty.

 

[idiom]

Also the Jury cannot create laws only suspend them. They cannot make government larger, only restrict it.

 

[Mini-Me]

Be as bland and noncommittal as possible during the selection process.

Ooooh, got it. I thought you were talking about raising our chances earlier in the process, i.e. pre-summons!

 

[Mini-Me]

In many states the court makes you pledge to judge only the facts of a case, or otherwise orients you to leave the law to the judge. This gives them the ability to prosecute you for perjury if you then do otherwise at trial. At the last jury duty pool I was part of I strenuously objected, and cited past law cases to back up jury nullification. The attorneys on BOTH sides tried to talk me out of it, finally suggesting that if I judged the law, they wouldn't know what criteria I used to reach a verdict. I was then excused from jury duty.

Such a pledge is unenforceable, because nobody is privy to what goes on in the jury room except for jurors, and as far as I know, jurors have long been protected by law from any retalitation for their verdict. Along with privacy/discretion, the jury's protection from retaliation simply goes hand-in-hand with a real jury trial...and I haven't heard of any cases where governments tried to undermine this by trying a juror for perjury for violating such a pledge.

If you want to argue the morality of breaking your pledge: Everyone tried for a criminal offense has a right to a jury trial - a real jury trial. It's completely moral to break your silly "pledge" if it means preventing the state from carrying out injustice against a fundamentally innocent person. If a few government stooges are trying to rob you of your power as a juror (and rob the defendant of a real jury trial) merely so they can abuse their own power and unjustly strip someone of their liberty, well...in that case, you have no responsibility to remain honest to them (and if they do their jobs to carry out justice, rather than injustice, then jury nullification won't come into play anyway, meaning you stayed true to your word ). Besides, a [basically] coerced pledge is about as binding as a coerced confession. Sure, you just won't get selected if you don't make the pledge, but no government has the right to corrupt juries by forcing such a pledge on them in the first place in direct contravention of each juror's duty to deliver justice.

The very idea of juries has long been a thorn in the side of government officials and the government itself, and they've long sought to undermine and diminish the vast - and important - power that juries have. The pledge you're talking about is really just a shaming tactic and scare tactic that corrupt (not necessarily by money, but certainly by anti-American ideology) judges and government officials use to discourage and disempower juries. In the legal sense, given the Framers' understand of the word "jury" at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights, denying defendants a real jury trial with such a pledge is blatantly unconstitutional as well. As far as the Constitution of concerned, jury nullification does not undermine the law or create lawlessness; rather, it's a completely intentional check and balance that the people retain.

In other words, if you're made to say a pledge, just say the pledge and cross your fingers behind your back. No judge or lawyer has the right to deny a defendant a trial by jury - and by jury I really mean a jury in the sense that the Framers and all of the classical liberals meant it...a jury with the power to veto unjust laws, not just some disempowered panel of muppet babies.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

The fully informed juror is aware that any judge requiring a pledge to judge the facts only, and forbidding judgment of the law itself and its particular application in the case in question according to each juror's conscience, has already broken his own pledge to uphold and defend the constitution, thereby rendering any pledges extracted from jurors under duress in that courtroom equally meaningless.

 

[mt4rp]

For more info:
http://fija.org/

 

[Danke]

For more info:
http://fija.org/

Iloilo Jones was on RBN WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 program:

http://republicbroadcasting.org/ind...3D1&year=9&backURL=index.php%3Fcmd%3Darchives

 

[angelatc]

In many states the court makes you pledge to judge only the facts of a case, or otherwise orients you to leave the law to the judge. This gives them the ability to prosecute you for perjury if you then do otherwise at trial. At the last jury duty pool I was part of I strenuously objected, and cited past law cases to back up jury nullification. The attorneys on BOTH sides tried to talk me out of it, finally suggesting that if I judged the law, they wouldn't know what criteria I used to reach a verdict. I was then excused from jury duty.

I would gladly serve time and would wear a perjury conviction proudly if I was defending the integrity of the system.

And as for them not knowing what criteria you used to reach a verdict - boo hoo. They could come in after the trial and ask....that happened to my husband who sat on a jury and aquitted a guy of DUI. The guy refused the test and didn't take the stand, so the husband figured it wasn't his first offense. But he also thought the state didn't prove the guy was drunk, so they voted Not Guilty. The judge and the prosecutor came down to talk to them after the trial to try to determine how the case was lost.

 

[Josh_LA]

Every freedom minded patriot should do everything they can to be placed on a jury.

Non violent drug, gun, tax or land cases, just for example, and hang that jury to Judgment Trump if need be.

so should every person sympathetic to criminals.