Re: Texas man shoots and kills wife of 60 years because he was ‘tired of her sufferin
If there was ever a less educated jury it would have been in the days of our forefathers who determined that a jury of our peers were the best judge of innocent or guilt.
Not so much. Juries were not as democratic then as they are now. In almost all of the states, only white male property owners could be on a jury. Many states applied additional criteria, such as paying certain types of taxes, or having "good character." E.g. Delaware required that jurors must be "sober, discreet and judicious freeholders, lawful men and of fair characters, and inhabitants of his bailiwick."
It took decades for juries to become the democratic institution they are today, and it is far from clear -- based on, among other things, the bias many Framers had against democracy -- that today's situation is what they intended.
They were dealing with an environment when colonial governors used the law as a weapon against seditious colonists, and jury nullification was one of the few defenses available. But what works best in one political situation is not necessarily optimal in another;
i.e. just because juries of (a highly restricted pool of) peers was popular in 1790 does not mean that they really do work best, or work best today.
One of those changes? Few criminal cases are presented before a jury. Despite the impressions you may have from
Law & Order and TV cops proclaiming "tell it to the jury,"over 95% of cases end in a plea bargain.
The world has changed. So has our populace, our political systems, our economy, our ideas about justice, the law, civic responsibility and so on. Clinging to a political concept because it is 200+ years old ultimately doesn't make a lot of sense.
There is no question in my mind whether I would leave my fate in the hands of our corrupt government or the good people that make up this country.
There ought to be.
1) A judge is not "the government."
2) You have (unsurprisingly) cited zero evidence that judges are more corruptible, or more difficult to unduly influence, than members of a jury.
3) The people are supposed to express their will through legislation and the checks and balances on the judiciary. If the government is passing laws the people do not want, that's a problem that juries cannot ultimately fix.
4) The "good people" of this country have made a lot of mistakes, and are not always "good."
Jury nullification has been mostly used against laws the people do not support or believe in. A lot of classic examples of jury nullification were actually used against slavery laws which the good people of this country refused to enforce.
Odd. To me, the classic examples are racist juries that let white defendants walk, when the victim was black.
Plus, there were a lot of "not good" people supporting slavery, segregation and racism in the South, and it required the intervention of the "corrupt" government to protect the rights of millions of citizens.
The law is not black and white otherwise evidence would not be necessary. In a country ruled by the people the people should have the final word in the determination of the law.
I did not say that the law is "black and white." What I said is that the laws in our country are written by representatives of the people, that the job of a jury is to weigh the facts and apply the law, and that jury nullification is a crappy defense against poor laws or a tyrannical government. Plus, times have changed dramatically since the 1790s. Nothing you've said stands as a viable refutation of those claims.
