Definitely would. Imagine if 10% of a jury pool will acquit anyone on any drug charge no matter what. You have much better a chance of taking things to trial in that case. You very likely won't get off, but you'll keep getting mistrial after mistrial until finally being convicted or the government stops pursuing it (or you get really lucky and hit 12 jurors). If no one pled guilty, the costs of the court would be extremely high and we wouldn't have enough resources to handle it. There's a reason why prosecutors charge so much and agree to plea down a ton. It's part of the game.

So anyone gonna answer my Judge question?

Sounds an almost perfect result. Laws so bad that 10% of people refuse to convict anyone at all should suffer that fate.

I don't think that judges should disregard the law to satisfy their own sense of justice exactly because I support jury nullification. If the jury can ignore the letter of the law to satisfy their sense of justice there is no need for the judge to be able to. And if the jury is forbidden from nullification then I don't see the point of having a jury. The aphorism "Hard cases make bad law" informs my position. If a judge ignores the law that is setting precedent, if a jury does so then no precedent is set.

Fly pretty much answered it in the other thread.

I'm sort of confused on the ACists' position ITT. When talking about externalities, several ACists accused me of advocating what *I* wanted, rather than what society wants (which was actually the exact opposite of what I was advocating).

In this thread, it seems the ACists want to give everyone the right to do what they choose (as long as they're one of the 12 on a particular jury) over what society has chosen.

To be honest, I don't know if Tom or leaves were those saying those things in the other thread, but it seemed to be a central tenet of AC that there isn't one (or a few) dictating to everyone...

Yet innocent people still get executed. Hows that work?

If I'm not mistaken, there is a crowd here that wants juries to become the U.S. Supreme Court. If we lived in a true democracy I can see this "jury nullification" being viable, sort of. Never mind, I do not. No one has explained how it makes it more fair to play politics with laws when the prosecutor and defendant are seeking justice and truth for an individual person. At that point it is no longer about the evidence or facts or the defendant, its about the law being on trial. Justice and truth will lose out in these cases and politics will win.

You do realize not everyone who pleads guilty is actually guilty, right?

The system begins before they even step in a courtroom.

b

This is stupid. You can not have a justice system and not convict innocent people. Anyone who tells you different, is wrong. Anyone who wants that the rule of law will cease to exist as it will be impossible to convict real criminals. That is the reality of an imperfect world.

I'd criticize your word choice, so there's a small fyp. nullifying juries accomplishes this. I don't like to bow to the founders, but if the founders wanted someone to to just recite the state's law and not interpret it, they'd pick a ward of the state, a judge, over juries. at least that's my sentiment. someone could persuade me otherwise perhaps. it's my interpretation that the jury was meant as a counter-balance against tyranny, and can be an appropriate tool. any market needs checks against tyranny in any form, whether it be thugs or government (or do I repeat myself ). as a technology against tyranny it can be used for good and evil. it's also the same with guns. not accepting the state's laws on slavery is not imposing your will on others for instance, but lynching obviously is.

it is not tyranny to not accept unjust laws and any civil rights leader would say the same.

The justice system isn't about truth. Far from it. Which is funny you say that when you say they shouldn't revisit a case 20 years later in light of potential new developments. Where's the pursuit of truth in that?

One way to take politics out of it is taking the weight off the favorable impression people get when they hear a prosecutors conviction rate, something many tout and use to advance their careers.

b

Give me numbers, as I'm betting its negligible. Does it happen, probably....but at any rate significant? I would highly doubt it. So what is your point?

Taking the DP off the table doesn't mean you won't be able to convict people.

b

wow, we're now at truth, justice, and the American way. If this is "playing politics", it's a similar form of "playing politics" as protesting. In fact, it exactly is a protest. You see, the majority is very much capable of passing laws that are unjust, immoral, or just plain terrible for society. I'm not sure if you've realized it or not, but the constitution and the supreme court have a pretty ****ty (meaning very slow) record of correcting these injustices (assuming they ever do). In fact, there seems to be a pretty striking correlation between mass protests and the USSC actually moving to correct these types of things, strange how that works out. JN is just another form of protest, and like all protests it's only effective if the government doesn't clamp down on them and there's enough people involved that it forces the majority to take notice.

Your fyp strangely addresses the collective, but not the issue at hand--and that is the individual is given huge power.

I understand your thinking but it makes no sense in the context of the legal system.

Seriously, who are these nincompoops worrying about executing innocent people? If you want to live in a society with laws you need to kill innocent people; those do-gooders who get all up in arms over the execution of innocents are just plain stupid!

Also, goofy is right.

There's already effective nullification every step of the way. Witnesses of "crimes" (smoking pot or lowest-level distribution for a simple example) fail to report because they don't give a ****. Cops fail to arrest all the time because they don't give a ****. Prosecutors refuse to file or plead down to effectively nothing because they don't give a ****. It's pretty asinine to acknowledge that those groups have huge discretion, and that that discretion causes widely different outcomes, but then object to nullification with ZOMG AWFUL LAW MUST BE CONSISTENT when it's clear that the enforcement of the law for low-level crimes is already anything but.

No, the individual is not given huge power. It takes a significant portion of a population who not only believes a law to be unjust, but is willing to nullify that law as a member of a jury for this process to be successful. One dimwit (me) deciding I'm going to vote not guilty on a possession charge changes nothing.

Edit: This is, of course, the reason why FleeingFish's strawman in the other thread was so terrible. Him and a few buddies deciding they like rape and want to nullify rape laws is ridiculous on any level. It's especially ridiculous when we were talking about an issue where 30+% of the population thinks the death penalty is wrong under any circumstances.

Quit lying. I've never said they should not revisit cases after 20 years. If you are so correct in you view you would not have to manipulate my words. Its dishonest. I've said you can not hold the state to the burden of reasonable doubt when examining such "new" evidence 20 years later and after there has been a conviction using that burden. The burden is higher and is on the convicted. Has to be that way or we'd never keep people in jail.

That is what I said. A trial is about what you can prove and that difficult burden is on the prosecutor. No one who watches the Anthony or Simpson trial would dispute how hard this burden is.

Anything but negligible.

Of DNA exonerees, 41 of 65 confessed to the crime.

According to Drizen and Leo study (2004), of a documented 125 proven false confessions, over 80% involve murder charges. 81% of those that went to trial were convicted based upon false confession evidence.

Here's some reading for you to do if you want to explore it beyond just pulling things out of your ass. I can steer you to more if you like.

http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/F...enl.leo.04.pdf

Have fun.

b

Nice straw man. You are suggesting that I am calling people who are not accepting the realities of a justice system stupid and should stop protesting over a barbaric punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm saying if you want a justice system you should be aware innocent people will be convicted. If you do not accept this, there can be no justice system. They are not stupid for opposing a barbaric punishment, nor have I said this. If people are so convinced of their opinion why do they feel the need to manipulate.

And therefore they shouldn't even try because that would make bad precedent...

Yeah, you kinda did say it.

Therefore, new techniques that become available that can exonerate a person shouldn't be used post 20 years? Because, after all, they've been convicted and having that new evidence there's no way they'd be held to the same burden of doubt.

Want to clarify your stance?

b