• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On Drug laws and Jury Nullification

longview said:
I got called to Jury duty, (not picked for the Jury),
The case was a cocaine possession with intent to distribute case.
The defendant looked like someone out of a gangster movie.
I would have no issues sending a drug dealer to prison, but during
the voir dire, the prosecutor said something I took exception to.
He stated the possession with intent to distribute was for possession of between
4 and 200 grams of cocaine, including any adulterating agents.
I asked if the adulterating agents were on the controlled substances list,
if not, they should not be counted towards the weight for conviction.
(I.E. convect on net weight, not gross weight).
He responded, that, that is just the way it is done.
After several hours, more of voir dire, the 65 member jury pool
was sent out of the court room.
Myself and 5 others were brought back in for individual questions.
The Judge said the prosecutor wanted to clear up some questions.
The prosecutor told me that is just how the law is written, and to take it up with the
legislature. I told him since the early days of our republic Juries have capability
to not just judge the facts in a case but the law itself.
(I was skirting around using the words Jury Nullification,
as to not spend the night in Jail for contempt.)
In this case it seems the law was unnecessary vague.

This whole process got me to thinking about why jury nullification is still
a valid concept in the law?
I think it comes down to, the law is what the people think it is.
The people elect legislators to write laws representing the peoples values.
If enough Juries nullify a law, perhaps the legislature should revisit the law in question.
I can only assume that the courts desire to not inform juries of their right to judge the law itself,
is based on condescension on the part of our justice system.
Click to expand...

Bold: That is exactly why you didn't get picked to be on that jury panel. A lawyer is just like a politician, they know how to mince words better than you and can pick it up better than you. The moment you said that part in bold that prosecutor KNEW that you were talking about Jury Nullification and would have nothing to do with you. Even if he asked you a few more questions after that he had made up his mind based on that one statement of yours. Prosecutors HATE Jury Nullification and do everything that they can to avoid it.

Now, as to your question... YES. Jury Nullification is still just as valid today as it was 200 years ago and more. It is The Peoples LAST line of civilized defense against unjust laws. But here is the thing about Jury Nullification. One or two instances of Jury Nullification will not change laws. It requires HUNDREDS (in this day and age possibly thousands) of Jury Nullifications to get a law changed. And the only way to get that done is for people to speak up about Jury Nullification. Get people to know about it. What it does. What it is SUPPOSED to be used for. How to use it. What NOT to say in order to actually get to use it. Because like I said, prosecutors hate Jury Nullification and the moment they sense it, they will get rid of the person that is willing to use it. In some areas you don't even dare mention it while you're on the Jury because if the Judge or prosecutor gets wind of it they will declare a mistrial in order to get rid of it. DESPITE the fact that it is a Right that We the People have as Jurors.

So, the next time you get called for Jury Duty, don't even HINT that you know anything about Jury Nullification. Otherwise they'll do whatever they can to get rid of it. In the mean time tell your friends about it and have them tell their friends about it. Look into the history of it, print out that history in a decent format, and hand it out to your friends and have them do the same to their friends.
 
Carjosse said:
You can the video above that explains everything. In summary though essentially jury nullification exists as a logical consequence of the law, but if they tell you about it the law has no force and evidence does not matter. Also it is a double edged sword, it has been used to nullify convictions for good things like fugitive slave laws but also Southern lynch mobs.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jury Nullification is a double edged sword. There is no doubt about that. But I would contend with you that there are times that the law should have no force and the evidence should not matter. Read up about trial of John Peter Zenger. It gives an excellent example of when a law should not be applied despite the evidence that the person did in fact break the law. Even outright admitting that he broke the law.
 
Carjosse said:
That is because they can't, otherwise it breaks justice system. Law has no force if juries know they can just not convict. Jury nullification also technically does not exist, it is not a law but the logical consequences of laws.
Click to expand...

No, it actually can add to the Justice system. Justice is not just about whether or not someone broke the law. Justice is also about making sure that people are treated fairly and are not convicted because of some power hungry folks think that you shouldn't be able to shoot a dear in order to feed your family because you have absolutely no money to buy food from the local market place. <--- note: that was just a small example.

Can it be abused and as such "break" the justice system. Yes. Absolutely. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water so why do the same here?
 
Carjosse said:
It means that the law has no wight, if people know they will just get out of it. Jury nullification can used for good but also evil. There are other ways to fight unjust laws.
Click to expand...

Not all laws deserve weight to em.

For instance, to use my other example that I already gave. It is illegal to poach deer. But I will not convict someone that shot a deer in order to feed their family. I WILL use Jury Nullification.

Yes, Jury Nullification can be used for evil. That was evident when whites were hanging blacks and getting away with it due to Jury Nullification. But despite that I still will not give up my Right to use Jury Nullification if it means sending someone to jail for simply wanting to feed their family. And I fully believe that it is WRONG of prosecutors and judges (and anyone else) to do everything that they can to get rid of Jury Nullification. Sending someone to jail on a technicality is just as bad as letting someone go because of a technicality.
 
No Jury Nullification in Sweden. Mainly because we don't have juries, just judges Or, as some say, unjust judges.
 
Caine said:
The key part that both you and twtt seemed to ignore was the fact that I was responding to a poster who had this to say about jury trials....
" Most that do are high profile cases that the prosecutor wants the press to cover."

Nowhere NEAR most cases that go to a jury trial are as described. That is what I was responding to, not claiming that jury trials aren't less common. However, they are more prevalent when you work in the wealthy part of town. :)
Click to expand...

Got it. And I agree.
 
RetiredUSN said:
No juries? Hmmmm......interesting.

I will make this my research topic this morning.
Click to expand...

Good, here is a start for you my nautical friend. Swedish Judges form a profession in their own right. They are not promoted from the ranks of lawyers as in pretty well every other country. These legally qualified judges are 'assisted' by nämdemän (sing nämdeman) usually translated as lay judges. Nämdemän are chosen by political parties, in proportion to their size. They are, without exception to my knowledge, loyal party officials who are given the job as a retirement bonus. Two or more sit with judges in the courts and always - I know of no exception - agree with what the professionally qualified judges decide, both as to guilt and to sentence.

If, as a result of your research, you conclude that this system stinks you will not be alone.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes, Jury Nullification is a double edged sword. There is no doubt about that. But I would contend with you that there are times that the law should have no force and the evidence should not matter. Read up about trial of John Peter Zenger. It gives an excellent example of when a law should not be applied despite the evidence that the person did in fact break the law. Even outright admitting that he broke the law.
Click to expand...
I agree that nullification is a double-edged sword. So is upholding the law at times when the law is unjust. Hence, nullification.
 
Sweden said:
Good, here is a start for you my nautical friend. Swedish Judges form a profession in their own right. They are not promoted from the ranks of lawyers as in pretty well every other country. These legally qualified judges are 'assisted' by nämdemän (sing nämdeman) usually translated as lay judges. Nämdemän are chosen by political parties, in proportion to their size. They are, without exception to my knowledge, loyal party officials who are given the job as a retirement bonus. Two or more sit with judges in the courts and always - I know of no exception - agree with what the professionally qualified judges decide, both as to guilt and to sentence.

If, as a result of your research, you conclude that this system stinks you will not be alone.
Click to expand...
I don't disbelieve you at all, but I have to ask... What's the point of having them?

I envision some idealistic way to balance the judicial system and keep the actual judges accountable, but like many things bureaucratic it never worked out that way.
 
re jury nullification

A friend of mine believes that if you intend to nullify you don't tell anyone beforehand (i.e.: during jury selection). You just do it.

I can't decide if that's a good strategy, or not.
 
radcen said:
I don't disbelieve you at all, but I have to ask... What's the point of having them?

I envision some idealistic way to balance the judicial system and keep the actual judges accountable, but like many things bureaucratic it never worked out that way.
Click to expand...

With your usual perspicacity you've got it in one Racen. I suppose the original intention was to give the illusion that somehow 'the people' are involved in the administration of justice. For a few years now there has been some vague half-hearted discussion of some feeble 'reform'. Way short of a meaningful change: namely the introduction of jury trials.
 
Sweden said:
No Jury Nullification in Sweden. Mainly because we don't have juries, just judges Or, as some say, unjust judges.
Click to expand...

Sweden said:
Good, here is a start for you my nautical friend. Swedish Judges form a profession in their own right. They are not promoted from the ranks of lawyers as in pretty well every other country. These legally qualified judges are 'assisted' by nämdemän (sing nämdeman) usually translated as lay judges. Nämdemän are chosen by political parties, in proportion to their size. They are, without exception to my knowledge, loyal party officials who are given the job as a retirement bonus. Two or more sit with judges in the courts and always - I know of no exception - agree with what the professionally qualified judges decide, both as to guilt and to sentence.

If, as a result of your research, you conclude that this system stinks you will not be alone.
Click to expand...

Wow, had no idea that there was a 1st world country out there that still didn't have a jury system. If everything you say here is true, and I have no reason to think it isn't, then yeah your system stinks. And I most definitely understand Julian Assaunge's wish to not get deported to your country.
 
radcen said:
re jury nullification

A friend of mine believes that if you intend to nullify you don't tell anyone beforehand (i.e.: during jury selection). You just do it.

I can't decide if that's a good strategy, or not.
Click to expand...

That is exactly it. And unfortunately it is the only available strategy. Otherwise you can get the trial declared a mis-trial which completely defeats the purpose of jury nullification.
 
RetiredUSN said:
No juries? Hmmmm......interesting.

I will make this my research topic this morning.
Click to expand...

We do too. They're called bench trials and can be used, in general, if everyone: defendant, state and court, agree to it. In that case the judge then effectively acts as the jury.
 
Gaius46 said:
We do too. They're called bench trials and can be used, in general, if everyone: defendant, state and court, agree to it. In that case the judge then effectively acts as the jury.
Click to expand...
Right, but they're an option. You can still opt for a jury trial (usually). Sounds like the Swedish system has no other choice. That's the difference he was objecting to, I believe... the lack of options.
 
Carjosse said:
That is because they can't, otherwise it breaks justice system. Law has no force if juries know they can just not convict. Jury nullification also technically does not exist, it is not a law but the logical consequences of laws.
Click to expand...

In American law it absolutely exists and is was confirmed by the unanimous vote of the first Supreme Court with the opinion written by John Jay first Chief Justice and one of the chief writers of the Federalist Papers. The case was Georgia vs. Brailsford.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Wow, had no idea that there was a 1st world country out there that still didn't have a jury system. If everything you say here is true, and I have no reason to think it isn't, then yeah your system stinks. And I most definitely understand Julian Assaunge's wish to not get deported to your country.
Click to expand...

I dislike Assange. But even a creep deserves a fair trial - and he would not get one in Sweden. His accusers are prominent feminists. When a prosecutor in Stockholm turned them down they went to another prosecutor in Gothenburg, several hundred miles away, who happens to be another celeb feminist. If this prosecutor, who now has the case, can get Assange before ultra feminist judges his conviction is assured. Btw the legal definition of what constitutes rape is wider in Sweden than any other country.
 
Carjosse said:
Rightfully so. There is no reason why they should let people talk about it.
Click to expand...

So knowing or learning your rights as a juror is punishable offense. WOW!
 
PirateMk1 said:
In American law it absolutely exists and is was confirmed by the unanimous vote of the first Supreme Court with the opinion written by John Jay first Chief Justice and one of the chief writers of the Federalist Papers. The case was Georgia vs. Brailsford.
Click to expand...

I am not debating its existence, I am saying that people should not be informed of it and not be able to purposefully be on a jury in order to nullify. Jury nullification is dangerous it makes evidence less relevant, and this is proven.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
So knowing or learning your rights as a juror is punishable offense. WOW!
Click to expand...

It is a de facto right and the court rulings agree with me, "the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged."
 
Carjosse said:
I am not debating its existence, I am saying that people should not be informed of it and not be able to purposefully be on a jury in order to nullify. Jury nullification is dangerous it makes evidence less relevant, and this is proven.
Click to expand...

Like all power, jury nullification is a double edged sword and depends on the integrity of the people wielding it. That said I believe everyone should be aware of their power, all their power. I guess we will have to disagree on this.
 
Carjosse said:
I am not debating its existence, I am saying that people should not be informed of it and not be able to purposefully be on a jury in order to nullify. Jury nullification is dangerous it makes evidence less relevant, and this is proven.
Click to expand...

All this does is make it to where the people do not have the power that they Rightly deserve and have and gives that power to the State. The good of Jury Nullification outweighs the bad.
 
Kal'Stang said:
All this does is make it to where the people do not have the power that they Rightly deserve and have and gives that power to the State. The good of Jury Nullification outweighs the bad.
Click to expand...

I am not advocating the removal of the power but the status quo (and court ruling) of not informing people of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom