Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Also, I just realized that he wants to do away with jury nullification, which makes me realize he has far too much faith in what the law considers his peers.

While I'm not sure you can do away with jury nullification, constitutionally; do you think jury nullification is a good thing? It's too much power left unchecked to be functional, imo.

Everyone likes it when the poor destitute drug addict goes free, nobody likes it when the white guys get off for murder of a black guy. Both are exercises of jury nullification, only one is seen as worse than the other. Legislation should be left to the legislature and prosecutorial discretion is held by the executive.

Why? Juries are a right. Judges are not noted as a right under the Constitution. One can easily argue that most faults with a jury are easily correcteable by reducing the ability of the legal teams to influence the makeup of those juries.

Frazzled wrote:
Clarify oh demented platypus. Is this in regards to sentencing or what aspect, and what is he espousing?

To be honest, I'm only starting to dig into his position, which may have changed as the only direct source I have is a book published in 1987.

From what I can gather, he wants juries to be the "ultimate arbiter" of the law, citing John Jay and Thomas Jefferson as kindred spirits. What isn't clear is if he means to apply this only to criminal law, or if it further extends to Constitutional questions as Jay discussed.

Interesting.

biccat wrote:
While I'm not sure you can do away with jury nullification, constitutionally; do you think jury nullification is a good thing? It's too much power left unchecked to be functional, imo.

I consider the same to be true of the jury itself, and place greater faith in a single, educated man, than a nearly random collection of jurors.

Remember, I'm nothing if not an elitist.

biccat wrote:
Everyone likes it when the poor destitute drug addict goes free, nobody likes it when the white guys get off for murder of a black guy.

Now you know that isn't true. You can just dig through this forum a bit to find examples of people upset about destitute drug addicts not getting their comeuppance.

dogma wrote:To be honest, I'm only starting to dig into his position, which may have changed as the only direct source I have is a book published in 1987.

Pff, you can't believe that. It was written like 20 years ago. Sure he's listed as the author and profited from it, but like, anyone could have written that book.

dogma wrote:I consider the same to be true of the jury itself, and place greater faith in a single, educated man, than a nearly random collection of jurors.

Remember, I'm nothing if not an elitist.

Indeed.

Although if the jury is relegated to merely making a credibility determination and has no power of jury nullification wouldn't this be superior? The judge, after all, has access to information that the jury does not which may bias his decision making one way or the other.

dogma wrote:Now you know that isn't true. You can just dig through this forum a bit to find examples of people upset about destitute drug addicts not getting their comeuppance.

Well, I shortened it a bit, lump enough sympathy on a defendant and you will influence someone. The thief who steals bread for his children might be a better example.

Everyone has their own sympathies and prejudices, you just have to find the right trigger for a member of your jury.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Why? Juries are a right. Judges are not noted as a right under the Constitution. One can easily argue that most faults with a jury are easily correcteable by reducing the ability of the legal teams to influence the makeup of those juries.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

There most certainly is a "right" to a judge (insofar as the judicial power is held by the Court and the court requires judges):

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made

As for the jury issue, I'm not familiar with that part of 6th amendment jurisprudence. The Constitution (case law) must surely give some protection for jury selection to the defense to ensure that the jury is "impartial"

biccat wrote:
Although if the jury is relegated to merely making a credibility determination and has no power of jury nullification wouldn't this be superior?

I generally favor a system that lets guilty men go free over one that puts innocent men in jail, so no.

biccat wrote:
The judge, after all, has access to information that the jury does not which may bias his decision making one way or the other.

I'm not especially concerned with that sort of bias outside of laws regarding admissible evidence.

Though, to be honest, I think the system works quite well as it sits currently. The only real issue being the role of monetary wealth in granting advantage to defendants, which I cannot think of a practical solution to.