Jury Abolitionist + Jury Nullification = Guaranteed Acquittal/Hung Jury?

[Trip]

[state: WA]

Let's stay a [potential] juror strongly believes these points:

1) trial by [drafted] jury is unjust

2) any law which requires trial by jury is unjust

3) unjust laws require jury nullification

Is it that juror's ethical/legal duty to always employ jury nullification, no matter what?

 

[gawm]

The potential juror should let their believes be known when they are being interviewed and then they would not have to worry about being picked for jury duty.

 

[Trip]

Okay, thanks.

Suppose a juror with those views somehow gets selected anyway (perhaps through shoddy questioning or vague answers).

Or, suppose a juror develops those beliefs after being selected for the jury (e.g., via mid-trial self-education).

From a legal and/or ethical point of view, should the juror opt for nullification automatically, regardless of the substance of the case? How can he/she use her rights as a juror to nullify/criticise the law that he/she now regards as unjust?

Or should she just "lighten up", "play the game", and "give the law a break"?

 

[gawm]

This is homework, isn't it?

 

[racer72]

Having been through jury duty 3 times in the state of Washington, it would be highly unlikely someone with those beliefs would make it through the jury selection process. If they did somehow get selected, that person would most likely be outed during deliberations. This could result in the juror facing criminal charges of juror misconduct. It is also not up to the jury if the law is just or unjust, the jury is there to decide if the defendant violated the law. The question of whether a law is just or unjust would be heard at the appelate level and juries are not used in appeals courts.

 

[Trip]

This isn't homework. It's in response to getting called for jury duty. Googling here and there uncovered jury nullification. I bought a couple books about it, and am trying to get educated before I walk into the court room.

 

[Trip]

So, it sounds like I need to make it very clear to the judges and lawyers that I do not regard myself capable of ignoring my belief in either:

1) the inefficiency and untrustworthiness of the compulsory jury system
(I believe legal professionals should decide cases, not random "newbies")

2) the right/duty of a juror to judge not just the case but the law
(which means thinking "outside the box" of the courtroom)

I don't want to get punished for my beliefs.

 

[CdwJava]

If you are unable or unwilling to decide a matter based upon the law and the evidence, then you should make that known in the selection process so you can be dismissed. If you go in to the deliberations believing beforehand in guilt or innocense based only upon your opinion of the charges, the defendant, the judge, the system, etc., then you do all parties a great disservice.

Don't waste everyone's time if you can't do your job.

- Carl

 

[mb94]

Did your research point out that the jury system is not mandatory? A defendant can waive their right to a jury trial and instead let the Judge decide. While the constitution gives them the right to a jury is their decision if they want to use that right. So your entire theory is incorrect because your second point (any law which requires trial by jury is unjust) is wrong. There is no law that requires a trial by jury, but they do allow it as an option if the defendant feels that it is in his of her best interest.

 

[Trip]

Okay, how about changing it to:

2) any law which allows trial by [drafted] jury is unjust

 

[Ohiogal]

Okay, how about changing it to:

2) any law which allows trial by [drafted] jury is unjust

It is unjust to be given a choice to have a trial by peers or trial by judge? Okay. You are not as smart as you seem to think. You should educate yourself a bit more about why we have a jury of peers rather than a jury of legal professionals deciding.

 

[Trip]

I don't see anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about making jury duty compulsory. That's the part that I find unjust. The Bill of Rights just says the jury should be "impartial".

Back when the US jury system was created (and the Bill of Rights written), juries were free to investigate a case outside the courtroom. That was one way to ensure that they weren't getting bullied by the court. Take away that right and suddenly you eliminate as ideal candidates all those jurors who believe in independent research. So much for "impartiality". All that's left are those jurors who believe that information can/should be limited. Yes, sir, Mr. Bush... Yes, sir, Mr. Television...

Not all of us are passive when it comes to accumulating information. Many of us have to hunt for information as our job. We are accustomed to doing our own detective work. Never trust one source of information, always look externally for supporting or refuting evidence. Always question, question, question in order to refine our understanding.

How can someone with that personality type be content to sit quietly while important points are being discussed? How can we keep our mouths and minds shut if we don't understand something, or if we spot a possible inconsistency? How can we willingly don the hat of yes-sir-no-sir couch potato if we don't even watch TV in real life?

As a student, I often interrupted (and corrected) teachers. It wasn't out of disrespect, but out of an obsessive need to refine my understanding by seeking clarification, clarification, clarification.

When the Bill of Rights was written, juror were allowed to seek clarification outside the courtroom. Nowadays they cannot. Heck, they cannot even seek clarification inside the courtroom; they just have to hope that it's handed to them (on a TV tray).

I'd rather the jury system be made up of volunteer legal specialists (who are permitted independent research), just as our military is made up of volunteer military specialists.

"Scraped from the masses" civilian militias and civilian juries are obsolete. Our country can benefit the most from accurate allocation of specialists, not slaves.

 

[CdwJava]

If you feel that way, join a movement or start one. Until the status of the law has changed, you should stay off of a jury if you feel that it is an imposition or if you are unable to fulfill the duty under the law as stands now.

As it was pointed out, if your family member was raped, would YOU want somone on the jury who felt that the system was wrong therefore they should vote not guilty just because?

- Carl

 

[gawm]

Write your state legislator. I went through the jury system with my life on the line. From my experience it works. Do some innocent people go to jail and some guilty people get off? Yes, but not a high percentage. There is no system that would be able to come up with absolute truth.

BTW, A person is entitled to a jury of their PEERS, a team of "legal specialist" whether they are volunteers or not (lynch men were volunteers) would not be a jury of one's peers, would it? (unless of course one of those legal specialist is on trial)

 

[You Are Guilty]

BTW, A person is entitled to a jury of their PEERS, a team of "legal specialist" whether they are volunteers or not (lynch men were volunteers) would not be a jury of one's peers, would it? (unless of course one of those legal specialist is on trial)

If you really want to get technical, you're actually only "entitled" to an impartial jury in the same state in which the crime was committed. No peers.