Can Jury's vote innocent if they disagree with a law?

LiptonCambell: I remember when I used to listen to a libertarian talk "radio" (its broadcasted, but i listened to it online.....it was "Free Talk Live" to anyone interested) , and from time to time, one of their talking points was an idea that, as a member of a jury, you have the legal right to find anyone, even someone who appears to be guilty, innocent- if you personally disagreed with the law they are being charged against.

Anyone else heard about this? Lol oddly enough, part of the talking point was them pointing out that the courts would remind people who attempted this that they do not have that legal right....although that didn't stop them from pushing that you could.....

Is there a name for this belief? Is it true? Should it be?

lavendar_star: I have no idea if there is a name for that belief but I dont think it should happen or encouraged.
A jury is made up of 12 random citizens who decide if someone is innocent or guilty based on the evidence, statements, the argument of opposing lawyers and if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilt. According to this proposal by that talk station; regardless if the person is guilty or innocent one can choose to vote that they are innocent based on fact they are disagreeable of the law. This is wrong as this is putting the individuals/jurors' belief higher than the state, law and the community and justices itself.

For example a person might not think that drug selling should be a crime because they believe that the drug laws are injustice, so drug dealers who sell drugs to all sorts including children could go free. The same could be said with domestic violence and rape some may feel that law is too harsh or that assaulting a partner is something that the law or the police shouldn't get involved in and that they disagree with the laws pertaining to it.

The most serious for me is child abuse: some people believe that smacking a child even beating a child is something that shouldn't be illegal, at the extreme end there are small percentage of sick bastards who believe child abuse shouldn't be illegal or wrong be it a adult with a teen under the age of consent or a actual child. I even read article where psychologists who were obversely sick were discussing if child sex abuse was actually harmful to children and the fact there is organisations in Europe and America who want to legitimise paedophilia.

A juror is made up from a random cross-section of society including people who may have committed a crime ( but havent be caught) people who have sexist or beliefs based on religion or personal prejudices. It would be naive to think that jurors dont have some personal beliefs included in their decision making. However, for me regardless if you agree with the law or not, one should be committed to the legal system (which is far from perfect). To put your personal ideology above the law and deny the state and the victims of crime justice because of your belief of the law is totally wrong and selfish and I hope will never come to pass.

StuckInTheSixties:

If you disagree with the law that the accused is being charged of violating, you have no business being on that jury. The jury has the obligation of deciding the case within the law. If the prospective juror disagrees with the law, that person should not use the courtroom as the vehicle to express that disagreement. Doing so, even at the expense of a perceived injustice, subverts the justice system, weakens it.

StuckInTheSixties:

Lipton, I think the name for this is "Jury Nullification."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

LiptonCambell: Ah! Thanks! I tired looking up keywords, like "jury myths" and such, but I was gettin jack

lavendar_star: Interesting the concept of Jury Nullification- especially the one concerning the drug law which in regards to drugs possession which is understandable and in the past with the fugitive slave act and prohibition laws in the US, which both seem unjust within the context of the period and the unfairness of it.

"Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[4]

However, I still stand by my original statement despite the shades of grey with jury nullifications which according to the wiki article also includes other factors other then the one original stated by lipton. However, the article has made me think again, especially as judges themselves seem to be a law of their own and sometimes themselves disregard the juror verdict or even the law i.e. in sentencing.

I like the bit when Americans disregarded the law as it was English law, typical.

Yan26: Such an action would probably lead to the case be re-tried or appealed I guess. Such an action if used should only be used as a form of protest to draw attention to something. The final place for making any law should always be the legislature.
As a system for protesting this seems to be extremely risky as it would subvert the justice system.
As a system of changing laws it would lead to a situation where some unknown people would change laws as per their whims and fancies . So every time a case is tried anywhere in your country it has the potential of changing a law. That doesn't seem too smart.

LiptonCambell: Here's some historical examples put on Wikipedia about Jury Nullification;

"in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime.....In 1653 Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death"

"In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other Anglican bishops of seditious libel. Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the crown. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded £4,000 and £300 to John Wilkes and John Entick, respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers"

"In Scotland jury nullification had the profound effect of introducing (or as others believed, reviving) the verdict of "not guilty". It was in 1728 that one Carnegie of Finhaven accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl.[citation needed] However, if the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect cause this innocent man to die. To avert this injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, rendering the verdict of "not guilty" which remains in Scotland to this day."

In the United States, prior to the Civil War, jurors refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Another example was prohibition- Jurors refused to enforce it. In fact, oftentimes 60% of prohibition cases were nullified- leading to the 21 ammendment, ending prohibition


So what of it? If you were on a jury that had to decide either an unfair consequence(ie execution) for a crime that, at the very least, you feel is unjust- do you do it? Or nullify it?

Some examples are for treason- people who are considered "treasonous" often are not offered a fair and just conclusion(ie execution) for the crime they commited- another example is slavery- would you send a slave back to their owner, or even have them executed? Or would you null the jury?

Jury Nullification, according to wiki;

"Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[4] There have also been cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[5]

Other cases have revealed that some juries simply refuse to render a guilty verdict in the absence of overwhelming direct or scientific evidence to support such a judgment. With this type of jury impaneled for the trial of a case, even substantial and competently presented circumstantial evidence may be discounted or rendered inconsequential during the jury's deliberation"

I think both opinions are fair.....

Outbackjack: The idea of a jury is that the accused should be judged by their peers i.e someone who does not have a vested interest like a judge,prosecuter or local landowner.

Technically if the juror disagrees with the law then they are still judging their peers.

StuckInTheSixties:

You seem to be suggesting that as long as the accused is judged by peers, no other considerations are important.

That characterization of a jury is inconsistent with almost any justice system, which holds that not only should the accused be judged by a jury of his peers, but that jury should make that judgement within the law.

If a juror disagrees with the law, then they are still judging their peer ... but they are not making their judgment within the law, and thus, they're failing as a juror.

Edit: the top sentence/paragraph was added.

Outbackjack: I suppose technically that that is what I am suggesting.

I do understand how this could have wide implications with serious criminal cases. i.e if a nihilist was on a jury in a murder trial.

I guess I find it hard to have much respect for the judicial system in this day and age when so many politicians and corporate criminals get away with blue murder.

*sighs

StuckInTheSixties:

Well, frankly, being human and all, I can imagine it might be tempting to nullify a jury. But ideally, I wouldn't want to subvert the justice system. Anarchy isn't an appealing alternative.

The last time I was called up for jury duty, I was examined as a potential juror on a criminal case. I took my duty very seriously. I figure if they're going to subject me to the imposition of serving, I might as well do a good job of it.

Part of the process of juror examination is that after both the prosecutor and the defense take turns peppering you with questions designed to determine if they would find you unacceptable as a juror, you're allowed to ask the judge questions you might have. I realized that being a criminal case (from what I could tell, I'm pretty sure it involved a burglary), it might have "three strikes" implications, it might fall under a California law that imposes strict guidlines on those convicted of more than one offense within certain categories of offenses.

In my opinion (for reasons I won't belabor this thread with), it's a horribly designed law. If this was, indeed, a "three strikes" case, I realized that I couldn't honestly guarantee impartiality. I'm human, after all. But I also realized that if I asked that question out loud to the judge, it could very well bias other prospective jurors there in the courtroom. So I told the judge of that concern, and asked if I could be allowed to write my question - Is this a "three strikes" case? - and submit it to the court that way, rather than verbally? The judge consented, I jotted my question down, the baliff took it to the judge, then to the prosecutor, then to the defense attorney. The prosecutor, of course, instantly disqualified me. The judge thanked me for my participation, and that was that.

I could have been impaneled in the jury, and then used my personal attitude about what I consider to be a terribly unjust law as a factor in how I behaved as a juror. But taking the entire process seriously, I realized I had no business on that jury, nor did I have any business in possibly affecting other jurors, so I had to do it that way.

Outbackjack: Very interesting reading.I am not sure though that I could have done the same but I have never been called up for jury duty and probably wont ever be.

OCD_OCD: I completely agree with Sixties first statement. As a juror you go through a voire dire process and are asked if you have any perceived notions about the type of case, the law, the person who committed the crime, the legal system, etc.

Our most recent case in the US that was incomprehensible to me was the Casey Anthony jury. Those people believed that if the prosecuting attorneys could not prove HOW the child died, then Casey Anthony must be innocent. It was the most bizarre thing I'd even seen.

LiptonCambell: Again, while I agree with what has been said, I cannot get the historical stance out of my mind.

Do the people who oppose jury nullification believe that there is no circumstance when it would be the right thing to do? Historically, it was largely used to prevent slaves from being sent back in shackles to their masters- do you not think that, in such a circumstance, you would at least be tempted to nullify such a law? Do you feel the people who nullified those laws did wrong, and should have either followed the law, or stepped out of the way? Wouldn't that be condemning people to slavery?

I just can't get past that- in SOME circumstances, jury nullification is the only moral choice- that rejection of an unjust law, not merely judging a crime within the confides of the law, is justice.

And ultimately, who deicdes that "some" is up to the juror(which, as stated by other users above, could lead to some negative consquences to be certain)

I simply cannot find a positive stance to take on this. Sometimes, its wrong to nullify jury's. Othertimes, it isn't. And we must trust in the judgement of our peers when that moment is.

StuckInTheSixties:

Ouch! You twisted my arm nearly out of the socket!

Using that slavery scenario as the example is awfully persuasive. Let's just say that conceptually, I stand firm on my principles, as described above. But if your slavery scenario was at stake, I wouldn't feel to inclined to pontificate about it.

Needless to say, a better alternative would be to ban slavery legislatively, so it wouldn't be an issue.

But the danger of accepting jury nullification for something as persuasive as the slavery scenario is the ol' "slippery slope." Accept it for slavery makes it easier to accept it for something just a little bit less reprehensible than slavery (whatever that would be), and accepting it for that makes it easier to accept it for something just a little reprehensible than that, etc. etc.

LiptonCambell: >>>Needless to say, a better alternative would be to ban slavery legislatively, so it wouldn't be an issue.

Again, historically, the law was presented to prevent the civil war- to prove to slavery states that non-slavery states are attempting to return their "property"

StuckInTheSixties:

Well, that didn't work out very well, did it?

OCD_OCD: If a jury is out of control, the judge can hand down a directed verdict or declare a mistrial.

LiptonCambell: Doesn't a jury that doesn't come to a consensus eventually causes a do-over anyways?

If one person intended to nullify a jury, and vote innocent when everyone else votes guilty- wouldn't that mean that they would have to convince 11 other people to nullify with them? Or 11 people felt there was reasonable doubt, and 1 person chose to nullify(or a dozen or so variations of that theme)? I mean, it'd have to be a pretty fucked up jury to get things like fully supporting a persons "right" to abuse their child, and thus nullifying the vote.

StuckInTheSixties:

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Do not go to that website! It's just a trick!

If you go to that website, it will automatically infect your computer with a very harmful malware that will wreck your computer!

Don't be fooled by this trick!

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

LiptonCambell: I was watching "Walking Tall" the other day before I realized that they presented an example of jury nullification.....the character clearly committed a crime, nearly admitted to it, but the jury acquitted him of all charges since they felt what he did, especially in an instance of injustice within the logical police....