suppose you were on a jury...

Captivating. Tell me more, oh wise one.

 

What part was difficult for you? Ill cover that section in a more remedial way. Plus its fun watching people learn.

 

Oh, nothing was overly difficult. I just enjoy the education that you provide to us lower beings. You truly have a singular mind.

 

If it wasnt difficult for you then why were you questioning it? Just to be a dick?

 

To some extent, it defeats the point of a jury. Why do we even have juries when judges are better qualified to make the determination? To be judged by our peers - if you're going to tie their hands to the point they'll essentially do whatever the judge would do, then skip the process and save money, because at that point it's nothing more than tradition and formality.

 

The problem with jury nullification is that the criminally inclined tend to think of the law as consisting of that which is likely to be applied against them; so a verdict which, even if it's moral WRT the circumstances of the case, flies in the face of codified law can be taken by such people as license to engage in nefarious activity...

...which doesn't answer your question WRT any of your examples; but I can tell you that were I a juror on a case like that of Aaron and Melissa Klein, and were there a constitutional amendment sanctioning "SSM", my conscience wouldn't bother in the least me for voting to acquit.

So in your view a juror in a federal case can legally judge federal law on no other basis than his or her own "morality". Have I got that right?

 

too many activist judges, one vs many making the choice....

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

in some judges minds all black people would be guilty, cause in their minds they should not be here

kinda like driving without a license, if your hit by someone, it's your fault no matter what, cause you should not of been on the road

it's why we have so many judges on the supreme court, rather then just one

.

 

If it isn't immoral, then it isn't nefarious.

He is correct. Jury nullification is a check on the power of the government. Its purpose is that the power remains with the people, so if the government passes immoral laws, the people can do something about it before the next election cycle (when entrenched powers make it unlikely that even an election will help anyway).

 

The reason for a jury trial is that guilt or innocence isn't simply a matter of breaking the law. Laws can be wrong, and the jury are going to be your peers. The judge can implore the jury to please just vote based solely on the law and evidence he allows to be introduced, but he can sod off. It's not up to him.

No, I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer. I'm just some guy that gets to vote on whether or not somebody did something bad, and should he be punished. furthermore, Is the punishment too severe for the crime? Sorry, but no. Can't do that, either. So if some guy is clearly guilty of stealing my neighbor's TV, and the penalty is ten years in prison, then he's not going to do that time if I have a say in the matter.

 

The law is not designed to DEFINE morality, but to REPLACE it with an acceptable alternative designed to promote harmony in society. As evidenced by the arguments in this forum, morality has VERY wide interpretations, and the law supposedly is designed to promote consistent behavior.

Jurors are instructed that if a law has been broken, regardless of circumstances, they are required to find a defendant guilty. However, jurors are not legally bound to follow that admonition. Although it is not necessarily true that the end justifies the means, circumstances often justify exceeding parameters within reasonable limits. If a defendant's act is justifiable and he or she does not constitute a danger to society, incarceration only as a PUNISHMENT is pointless.

An excellent illustration of this scenario is OUTRAGE, a 1986 movie starring Beau Bridges.

 

Exactly this.

There are too many people who think the law is the end-all, be-all of our legal system. It is not.

The law is a tool for enacting justice. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

The problem with your commentary is that it undermines respect for the law when the law does not evoke justice. Should a proven mass-murderer be set free on a technicality to preserve the integrity of the system?

 

I would excuse myself from the jury on the grounds that I have a clear bias and would not be able to determine guilt properly.

 

Of course it does, how do you think they form laws in the first place? Why do you think we even have laws? That's group morality at play, first muted by all the great moral philosophers (who mostly predate Christianity btw).

 

I think one would have to excuse their self as a potential juror, if they have a issue with the law .

 

Why? A juror is the only thing standing between an unjust law and an unjust conviction.

 

The thread focuses on whether an individual would uphold the letter of the law when serving on a jury if he or she feels that this would result in an unjust verdict, not whether one supports or even condones lawlessness. When on jury duty, we are counseled that our verdicts must strictly conform to the rigid principles of our legal system, but the end result is supposed to be justice, not injustice.

We have a justice system in which protocol often seems to overshadow the question of guilt or innocence, and there is definite bias in favor of those who can afford to exploit the system to attain favorable verdicts. Successful attorneys are often looked upon with contempt for their ability to profit by thwarting justice. Those who cannot afford proper representation are destined to lose. The jury is our last chance to balance the scales.

Certainly, the egocentricity of those who callously break the law with no regard for the rights of others merits punishment, but is our system working when good people are incarcerated and bad people are set free?

Written laws cannot address every contingency or exception, as the Ninth Amendment of our Bill of Rights attempts to illustrate. As jurors we have the responsibility to carefully consider the evidence and administer JUSTICE accordingly, but we are trusted enough as responsible citizens to be given the latitude to follow our consciences. (The exception to this is that absolute evidence of guilt must accompany a guilty verdict.)

Again, let me recommend that you watch the movie "OUTRAGE", starring Beau Bridges. It was filmed in 1986 or 1987.

 

Your job as a juror isn't to determine if a law is just or not, it's to determine if the accused is guilty of breaking that law.

 

Only if you believe the rules are more important than the results.

What you just said is how a person makes sure they don't feel responsible for the results of their own decisions.

 

No way. And if I'm on the jury being asked to convict someone for a crime I don't think should be a crime, like possession of marijuana, I'd attempt something like jury nullification. If courts are looking for someone to strictly interpret the law and monotonously convict people based upon that, then they should be made up only of a judge. Or even a computer programmed to make cold, calculated decisions based on what is in the books. We get a jury of our peers so that contrasting worldviews can add perspective to the crimes committed. So that they can help to determine what is just or unjust in each individual situation.

 

Have I missed something here?
When did the jury system become a legal body that interprets law?
Oh wait, it's never been like that.