• 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!

Jury nullification... legit?

Jury nullification... legit?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 90.5%
  • No

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Can't decide, but it intrigues me

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Yes. It is the second to last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

Edit: ...anyone really surprised that I'm the first post to respond to this question? lol
 
Upon reading a bit about it, I think Jury Nullification can go both ways. It can protect the defendant from unjust laws, but at the same time there is also the potential for abuse.
 
Upon reading a bit about it, I think Jury Nullification can go both ways. It can protect the defendant from unjust laws, but at the same time there is also the potential for abuse.

This is true. But everything in life has a pro and a con. In this case the pro outweighs the con imo.
 
Yes. It is the second to last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

Edit: ...anyone really surprised that I'm the first post to respond to this question? lol
I agree it is part of the checks and balances built into our system, providing an essential check against potentially tyrannical government.

BTW - Kal'Stang, You said 2nd to last. What is the last? (I'm going to guess pardon??)
 
I agree it is part of the checks and balances built into our system, providing an essential check against potentially tyrannical government.

BTW - Kal'Stang, You said 2nd to last. What is the last? (I'm going to guess pardon??)

2nd Amendment.
 
I'm fine with it. If 12 (mostly) random people think that someone who is technically guilty should go free because the law is unjust, it's probably a pretty decent indicator of the way the American public in general feels about it, and a sign that the law in question needs to be re-examined.
 
BTW, if SCOTUS does approve of the mandate in Obamacare I freely admit that I will use Jury Nullification every time that (if ever) I am a juror in a case where the government is sueing someone for not paying the "tax" (fine) regarding it.
 
Jury nullification is one of the very reasons we initiated trial by jury.
 
If you ever want to get out of jury duty, wear a shirt that references nullification. you stand zero chance of being selected.
 
I'm fine with it. If 12 (mostly) random people think that someone who is technically guilty should go free because the law is unjust, it's probably a pretty decent indicator of the way the American public in general feels about it, and a sign that the law in question needs to be re-examined.

Only takes one.
 
If you ever want to get out of jury duty, wear a shirt that references nullification. you stand zero chance of being selected.

This is very true. Judges and prosecutors now a days HATE jury nullification. So to those that ever think that they may need to use jury nullification never ever give a hint that you even know about it. Otherwise you will get booted from jury duty.
 
If laws are unjust change the laws. I'm not a fan of nullification or allowing a small group of individuals change the law. Yes...in some circumstances laws should be changed...but nullification was also used in the south to let off murderers that killed civil rights protestors.
 
I think jury nullification was part of the law when the Constitution was written. "Facts and law".

I personally think it provides a needed counter to the current unlimited power of the Supreme Court.

A mechanism to prevent 9 people from "ruling", to counter tyranny "on the ground" as it were.

Right now, congress can pass a ridiculous law, get it upheld by a 5-4 majority and its the law of the land unless and until ANOTHER SC overturns it.

It puts the "people" back into "of the people, by the people and for the people".

It can of course be abused, but damn near anything can be.
 
Thank you both for the elaboration.

If it is allowable. Then it is allowable.

I'm not against jury nullification and I think it has its proper place - all i'm saying is that there are both pros and cons.
 
Only takes one.

That's not true. A unanimous decision is required for any kind of verdict (in most states, some only require a 10-2 majority), either guilty or not guilty. One dissenting person would result in a hung jury, and the defendant could be retried for the same crime.
 
This is very true. Judges and prosecutors now a days HATE jury nullification. So to those that ever think that they may need to use jury nullification never ever give a hint that you even know about it. Otherwise you will get booted from jury duty.
That's why you have to lie before you could do it, which is another reason why I'm against it.
 
I'm not against jury nullification and I think it has its proper place - all i'm saying is that there are both pros and cons.
Just in certain circumstances?
But for that to happen - Make it illegal for a murder charge. The gov would have to allow it's use. And I do not see that happening.
 
Just in certain circumstances?
But for that to happen - Make it illegal for a murder charge. The gov would have to allow it's use. And I do not see that happening.

Courts cannot make jury nullification illegal. I don't think it's that unusual for there to be hung juries because one or several people are using jury nullification to reach their verdicts. They just don't say it out loud.
 
If laws are unjust change the laws. I'm not a fan of nullification or allowing a small group of individuals change the law.

Except the people can't change laws directly. Especially on the federal level.

Yes...in some circumstances laws should be changed...but nullification was also used in the south to let off murderers that killed civil rights protestors.

It was also used to allow slaves who escaped to the North from being returned to the South.
 
Back
Top Bottom