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.

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ideally that might be the case, but realistically there can be a disconnect between the will of the people and that of those making the laws and applying sentencing.

I've got a problem with that because the will of the people is expressed at the ballot box, not in a court of law by just 12 people. Just because you're one of the people, it doesn't mean every decision you make carries the weight of the thoughts of the whole nation behind it.

And just because it's law doesn't mean the majority of the nation agrees with it.

We don't vote on every single law that gets made and rarely do we agree entirely with the parties we vote for. We can try lobbying for laws to be changed, but I think it's naive to think there aren't cases where the law is being applied in way the people don't agree with.

In most courts my understanding is you need a unanimous decision to either acquit or convict, so if you're just one of the people on the jury you'll just end up with a hung jury.

I think it's legitimate for a jury to decide someone did something against the letter of the law but it wasn't immoral or deserving of being convicted for it. In some cases the law may be trying to make an example of someone and jury nullification sends the opposite message.

I think its dangerous because people and their opinions are very far from perfect. We have built a legal framework that tries to make the law as objective as possible, because people's subjective opinions contain all manner of bias.

We make the law as objective as possible but just because we make it as objective as possible doesn't mean it's as correct as possible in all situations.

Of course I don't think jury nullification should be encouraged, but I think it should exist and juries should know about it for cases where they deeply feel that the law is being applied You have cases like The Camden 28, where law enforcement could have prevented a crime but instead allowed it to happen so they could try and make an example of the group.

Sure, they could have just convicted them, hoped they got off on appeals (which they probably wouldn't) and then hope they can get them out of jail with protests (has that ever actually happened?) or they could just nullify the law to send a clear message to the FBI that they unanimously would not be a party in their schemes.

I think there's 2 main times for jury nullification...

1. Unpopular laws, like the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibition or the war on drugs. It's not a perfect system for getting the law changed but it allows one more avenue for people to demonstrate their disdain for a law.

2. Laws which in and of themselves might be fine and/or rarely applied but are being applied in a situation which the jurors think is unjust. These are uncommon cases where lobbying is going to do sweet feth all to help the person who's going to be put behind bars.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I think you're under the false impression that intelligent people can't and don't do stupid things.

No, my point is exactly that. These guys did a stupid thing, but we can't assume that's because they are stupid. In fact, looking at their rationalisation it looks like they applied a great deal of intelligence to justifying a very stupid verdict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And just because it's law doesn't mean the majority of the nation agrees with it.

Obviously, but that's quite irrelevant to jury nullification because it isn't a poll of the whole nation. It is 12 random people deciding if they personally want to apply the law or not.

We don't vote on every single law that gets made and rarely do we agree entirely with the parties we vote for. We can try lobbying for laws to be changed, but I think it's naive to think there aren't cases where the law is being applied in way the people don't agree with.

Of course it isn't perfect. The point is that letting random people decide by themselves if they want the law to apply or not is a really gak alternative, that is very likely to make things worse.

In most courts my understanding is you need a unanimous decision to either acquit or convict, so if you're just one of the people on the jury you'll just end up with a hung jury.

You don't always need a unanimous verdict. It depends on the country and the crime. And even when you do the courts aren't too tolerant of hung juries, they will force juries to stay debating the issue for a long time before they'll allow them to be a hung jury. This puts tremendous pressure on a minority of holdouts to stick to their original decision.

1. Unpopular laws, like the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibition or the war on drugs. It's not a perfect system for getting the law changed but it allows one more avenue for people to demonstrate their disdain for a law.

2. Laws which in and of themselves might be fine and/or rarely applied but are being applied in a situation which the jurors think is unjust. These are uncommon cases where lobbying is going to do sweet feth all to help the person who's going to be put behind bars.

3. Wangrods who are happy to let personal and political bias override the verdict that is demanded by the facts of the case.

This looks like a combination of bad charging, and jury nullification. The juror is covering for what he wanted to do. Even with a lame charge the evidence quite clear and simple.

When did Oregon become right wing? They are supposed to be granola eating hipsters so pale they reflect starlight. Frazzled confused.

That's just the cities. Outside of the cities, they are worse than Texas...

 skyth wrote:
That's just the cities. Outside of the cities, they are worse than Texas...

Everywhere is worse than Texas!

 Frazzled wrote:
This looks like a combination of bad charging, and jury nullification. The juror is covering for what he wanted to do. Even with a lame charge the evidence quite clear and simple.

When did Oregon become right wing? They are supposed to be granola eating hipsters so pale they reflect starlight. Frazzled confused.

Oregon is really two places, the Willamette Valley, with Portland and Salem, and "the rest of the state". The latter half is often very deep conservative. Medford is one of the big originators of the prepper movements.

That said, one could also ascribe it to Portland's "no harm no foul" attitude in a lot of things, the only person hurt or killed was one ofnthe protestors (who went out exactly the way he had been blabbing to everyone he wanted to go out).

Ultimately it sounds like the Jury was turned off by the Prosecution coming off like arrogant pricks. I can get *maybe* failing to prove conspiracy on that charge, but getting off on the weapons charges largely sounds like giving the finger to the prosecution just because.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/trial-not-guilty-verdict-reaction-bundy/

 kronk wrote:

 skyth wrote:
That's just the cities. Outside of the cities, they are worse than Texas...

Everywhere is worse than Texas!

As a Texan, I agree with this statement.