• ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Key facts about Jury Trials:

    1. Jurors cannot be punished for their decison either “guilty” or “not guilty”, no matter if the decision was the “right” or “wrong” decison.

    2. A verdict of “not guilty” cannot be appealed nor overturned.

    3. A person cannot be tried for the same criminal act more than once. Famously known as the “No Double Jeopardy” clause. (although: according to the law, mistrials / hung juries don’t count as a trial for the purposes of “No Double Jeopardy”)

    Interpret these facts however you will. wink wink, nudge nudge

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        cough cough ^jury ^nullification cough

        Sorry, there must be something in the air today.

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      10 days ago

      Can we crowd source ads around Manhattan and have people with bullhorns on the sidewalks around the court entrances announcing “Jury Nullification is your right!”?

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        10 days ago

        Just to be clear, Jury Nullification isn’t a right, more of a natural consequence of the 2 rules:

        Jury can’t be punished for not ruling a certain way

        And

        No double jeopardy.

        You can’t outlaw jury nullification without breaking the first rule and you can’t break the first rule because it’s absolutely necessary for a fair justice system

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 days ago

          It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.

          The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.

          Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          True, but from the perspective of a juror, it may as well be a right, and calling it a right gets the point across much more efficiently than trying to explain in detail.

        • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          A judge can overrule a jury if they think the jury judged the law rather than the defendant, however.

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 days ago

            Only for a guilty verdict, a non-guilty verdict can’t be overrode or appealed.

            That’s why they hate juries knowing about it so much

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 days ago

      Jury nullification is one way to overturn unfair laws.

      If a bunch of juries refuse to play ball, prosecutors will stop trying the cases. They think convictions are the only way to win reelection.

      I’m an advocate for homeless people. I 100% support jury nullification.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        I mean, we’d probably want to keep murder illegal. It’s just this specific murder we don’t take issue with.

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      something like the casey anthony trial comes to mind though. the jury wanted to convict but needed to act objectively on evidence alone. so they all cringed and cried as they all signed off to acquit or whatever. this would be the opposite, but the idea is the same.

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Different.

        A “guilty” verdict that a judge deems to be lacking evidence and result in the judge giving their verdict that overrides the jury’s. It could also get appealed. So there’s no point of the “guilty” version of Jury Nullification.

        In contrast, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overrulled by the judge, nor can it be appealed. So this version of Jury Nullification is much stronger.