Is jury nullification not mob rule or democracy?

[Josh_LA]

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.

if the jury knows this much, why let the trial happen?

Drag out the judge and hang him so they'll be no further mistakes.

 

[Josh_LA]

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.



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?

Sorry to sound like I'm cutting you short, but IF all people were equally capable of understanding and upholding the Constitution,

1. Would there be crime?
2. Would there need to be judges?
3. Can we replace judges with law robots?
4. Why should we let a trial happen in court with due process if the jury can ultimately make the decision, whether it's based on Constitutionality or personal opinion, isn't the fact regular citizens can rule over judges, simply rendering judges and courts USELESS?

 

[Josh_LA]

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

They don't need to make laws if they can keep setting free criminals or imprisoning people they don't like.

Yes they CAN make the government larger by adding to the damage (of over punishing innocents or underpunishing criminals)

 

[Josh_LA]

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.

yes, most people just don't care.

 

[Josh_LA]

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

but before you even get to that pool, you're just as equally likely as the handicapped and non-English speakers.

 

[JohnMeridith]

I had jury duty monday. I didnt get selected to sit

 

[Josh_LA]

I had jury duty monday. I didnt get selected to sit

why? did you say you believed in guilty until proven innocent?

 

[JohnMeridith]

it was an aggrivated assault with a firearm, they asked about guns which I have one or two of and i'm guessing the defense removed me. that or it could be that there were 40 people to select from and they only sat 8

Where i live you go to jury duty for a single day and you are done, whether you are seated or not. That was the only time I went up for the voir dire process.

 

[Mini-Me]

Sorry to sound like I'm cutting you short, but IF all people were equally capable of understanding and upholding the Constitution,

1. Would there be crime?
2. Would there need to be judges?
3. Can we replace judges with law robots?
4. Why should we let a trial happen in court with due process if the jury can ultimately make the decision, whether it's based on Constitutionality or personal opinion, isn't the fact regular citizens can rule over judges, simply rendering judges and courts USELESS?

Not all people are equally capable of understanding the Constitution, but the opinion of judges does not necessarily constitute the truth either. From the standpoint of individual rights, there is a such thing as exact justice, but as imperfect observers with imperfect information about facts, law, the legality of lower laws, and the justness of laws, the best that anyone deciding a case can do is approximate justice to the best of their ability. No justice system will ever be perfect, and the best we can do is come to a general consensus on how trials should proceed so that the ultimate outcome usually most closely approximates actual justice. Jury trials are a check against kangaroo courts. Jury nullification is a check against unjust (or flat-out illegal) laws. The appeals process is a check against false convictions...etc. The system isn't perfect and never can be, but the point of it is that its findings and decisions are a whole hell of a lot more likely to approach true justice than forgoing trials and just dealing in mob justice.

1. ...this question doesn't really make sense to answer, because it's built upon a false premise. In any case, even if everyone understood the Constitution perfectly, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be crime. You can have a perfect understanding of the Constitution and not actually care about what it says...and as far as crime goes, it's not like the Constitution talks much about it anyway.
2. If everyone was equally capable of understanding the Constitution, there would still need to be judges, because people would still not be aware of the exact contents of lower laws, and the courtroom could still use someone to direct proceedings. However, if everyone was equally capable of understanding the Constitution, that would include judges, so there would be less of a need for juries to worry about stupid/complacent judges dealing in unconstitutional laws (that said, they'd still have to be on the lookout for corruption and intentional misrepresentation of the law - after all, understanding something does not necessary constitute respecting it).
3. Perhaps...but who is going to program the "law robots?" Aside from faulty programming: Without a human element, I somehow get the feeling that "law robots" would not have robust enough programming to keep order in the courtroom, assess the validity of objections, etc., let alone condense its interpretation of the law into simple points the jury can understand. Human judges are imperfect - which is exactly why their power over a trial is limited - but that doesn't mean they don't have their place.
4. The role of a judge is to keep order in the courtroom, make sure the trial proceeds in an orderly fashion, and ADVISE the jury as to the contents and meaning of the law. However, it's ultimately up to the jury to make the final judgment about the wisdom and truth of the judge's advice. Why would this make judges useless, just because their authority over the jury's interpretation of law is not absolute? Why would it make courts useless?

The main point here is that just because the justice system is fallible, that doesn't mean it's useless. By almost anyone's standards except for the Joker's - or perhaps yours - the complete absence of a justice system would result in much more unjust results than an imperfect justice system...and a whole lot more chaos. A perfect justice system isn't an option when administering justice inherently deals with imperfect information and possible agendas all around, but that's no reason to just give up on trying or to give up on minimizing corrupting factors with important checks and balances.

 

[Josh_LA]

The main point here is that just because the justice system is fallible, that doesn't mean it's useless. By almost anyone's standards except for the Joker's - or perhaps yours - the complete absence of a justice system would result in much more unjust results than an imperfect justice system...and a whole lot more chaos. A perfect justice system isn't an option when administering justice inherently deals with imperfect information and possible agendas all around, but that's no reason to just give up on trying or to give up on minimizing corrupting factors with important checks and balances.

Oh God, THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN, FINALLY.

How long have I waited for somebody who's rational, intellectually honest and willing to admit this fact?

(was it so hard for the rest of you? Geez)

 

[Mini-Me]

Oh God, THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN, FINALLY.

How long have I waited for somebody who's rational, intellectually honest and willing to admit this fact?

(was it so hard for the rest of you? Geez)

Eh, I try. Honestly, I think that when it comes down to it, principled libertarians are perfectionists when it comes to coming up with a morally sound and consistent philosophy (assuming given axioms). However, the justice system is a practical construct (rather than an abstract moral one), and I think it's hard to accept sometimes that no matter what we do, injustice will always still occur anyway. In terms of the judicial system, all we can ever do is try to minimize that injustice and/or try to best approximate suitable compensation...there's no such thing as 100% foolproof, but I still think that in general, the perfectionist mentality is a good thing. After all, striving for perfection will still result in better outcomes on the whole than doing a sloppy design job and ignoring obvious pitfalls (like placing too much unchecked authority in one person, etc.).

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Oh God, THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN, FINALLY.

How long have I waited for somebody who's rational, intellectually honest and willing to admit this fact?

(was it so hard for the rest of you? Geez)

Wow. Who here denied the necessity, evil though it is, of an organized justice system? Nobody as far as I can tell. When an actual flesh and blood victim can be named or produced, who has every right to expect redress of injury to person/property, and the actions of the accused directly caused such injury, then proportional redress is in order.

Since that doesn't even apply to half of all criminal cases though, it is in that larger group of cases involving gov't action against citizens accused of victimless crime that nullification can and ought to come into play much more frequently as a reasonable regulator of gov't reach.

 

[Josh_LA]

Wow. Who here denied the necessity, evil though it is, of an organized justice system?

evil though necessary? Whoa?

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Its not a positive that human beings cannot, in all cases, resolve difficulties and disputes among themselves in a reasonable and non-injurious fashion. It's a negative- and when the majority (i.e. the mob) rules, they have the power to impose resolution upon an individual regardless of whether that resolution is injurious to that individual, or not. That's the negative potential of mob rule. It can certainly be successfully argued that an individual can be dangerous enough to those around him, demonstrated by that individual's history, that the evil of injurious sanction be imposed because it is necessary to the safety of others. So that individual has his freedom (to injure others) restricted one way or another, as a necessary evil. It is more difficult to argue that individuals should be stripped of their societal freedoms over injuries they haven't committed upon anyone, simply because that same mob has decided they feel like doing so anyway- for reasons that may vary from the purely arbitrary to reasons based upon increased statistical probability of future injury incurred upon others. Statistical probabilities notwithstanding, stripping that individual of his freedoms boils down to categorizing him and punishing him for something others have done rather than any crime upon a victim he's committed. That's the importance of a jury weighing the fact of the law against the lack of injurious consequence- they can choose when its appropriate to apply law to its full extent because the circumstances demand it, and when there is no circumstantial basis for doing so, despite the existence of the law, they may decline to apply the law. In short, juries can sort whether its necessary to apply an available necessary evil and when its not necessary to do so. The law empowers but in the end discretion rules. LE & the Bar would like to retain that discretion to itself exclusively, it seems, but the fact of the jury system retains that power to impaneled jurors as well whether government employees and officials like it or not.

 

[Goldwater64]

Jury nullification is only allowed for not guilty verdicts in criminal trials. A judge can (and in fact has to) overturn guilty verdict or any civil jury verdict that was made for "non-legal" reasons.

HTH

 

[Goldwater64]

They don't need to make laws if they can keep setting free criminals or imprisoning people they don't like.

Yes they CAN make the government larger by adding to the damage (of over punishing innocents or underpunishing criminals)

No...they can't punish innocents that according to the facts have not committed a crime. A guilty verdict is reviewed right away by the trial judge and can be reviewed by appellate judges. A guilty verdict with no facts presented of a law being broken would be overturned right away by a trial judge.

Only a not-gulty verdict is not reviewed.

 

[Josh_LA]

No...they can't punish innocents that according to the facts have not committed a crime. A guilty verdict is reviewed right away by the trial judge and can be reviewed by appellate judges. A guilty verdict with no facts presented of a law being broken would be overturned right away by a trial judge.

Only a not-gulty verdict is not reviewed.

So jury nullification is a one way street, biased against overpunishment or innocent, not vice versa?

 

[KenInMontiMN]

I'd say it at least approaches that one way street, as the word nullification implies a choice to not apply law despite factual basis for doing so. If there was to be a phrase for the opposite situation, in which a jury convicts because it simply wants to, despite lack of factual basis, I suppose maybe prejudiced juries is the phrase? There has been plenty of that in our history as well, certainly- but the deck is stacked against it purposely by requiring unanimity to convict, while any one juror may block a conviction. Jurors ideally should be represented from a good array of income, age, gender, and ethnic demographics, as presumably at least, a jury of very monolithic make-up would be more prone to vote together prejudicially. I do get the feeling that juries in general here tend to run more white, more aged, more midscale economically, and more female than the general population of adults in my area. But that's just a feeling, I can't produce studies to back it up, I do wish they existed.

I would like to see jury pools get greater representation from groups more disenfranchised from society. Juries comprised mostly of those who've done well in a big gov't atmosphere would tend to run more big gov't-friendly in my opinion, and be disinclined to nullify as frequently.

 

[Danke]

I'd say it at least approaches that one way street, as the word nullification implies a choice to not apply law despite factual basis for doing so. If there was to be a phrase for the opposite situation, in which a jury convicts because it simply wants to, despite lack of factual basis, I suppose maybe prejudiced juries is the phrase? There has been plenty of that in our history as well, certainly- but the deck is stacked against it purposely by requiring unanimity to convict, while any one juror may block a conviction. Jurors ideally should be represented from a good array of income, age, gender, and ethnic demographics, as presumably at least, a jury of very monolithic make-up would be more prone to vote together prejudicially. I do get the feeling that juries in general here tend to run more white, more aged, more midscale economically, and more female than the general population of adults in my area. But that's just a feeling, I can't produce studies to back it up, I do wish they existed.

I would like to see jury pools get greater representation from groups more disenfranchised from society. Juries comprised mostly of those who've done well in a big gov't atmosphere would tend to run more big gov't-friendly in my opinion, and be disinclined to nullify as frequently.

I don't think lawyers should be able to screen who sits on the jury either.

Just make it a random selection from members of your community.

One problem is compensation too. If you are salaried (especially if you work for the government) it is usually no pay hit. Whereas a small business owner cannot afford to take the days off. And may even lose the business if they are not at the job full time.

 

[Josh_LA]

Whereas a small business owner cannot afford to take the days off. And may even lose the business if they are not at the job full time.

That's like saying I can't afford to go to jail or court so I can ditch it if I do something wrong. Either you obey the law or you do not.