politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Laws are written in such a way that they don't allow the jury to decide if what the person did was right or wrong, just if they did or did not do what was said.
Do you agree they had a pipe in their possession? Yes - jail.
Do you agree they had the drug on them?
Yes -jail.
The jury doesn't get to decide if they think it was okay for them to have the pipe/drug on them. A lawyer does their best to spin it in a way that maybe makes it appear the officer illegally made a search to make all subsequent findings inadmissable and invalid for charging. Or that the possession was not actually the person. But usually it comes down to, we found this on your person... And conviction of possession.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
From said page:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]
Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.
Consider reviewing my initial comment, pay particular attention to if, and, and might
That's what they want you to think. You can, in fact, decide you think the law is unjust and acquit. You can just feel bad for the defendant, or think the protection is being too harsh
The judge isn't going to tell you that, they're going to tell you to follow their guidance
You can't be punished for a jury verdict, and you can't be compelled to return a certain verdict
Jury nullification
Tuna Cowboy discussed that below, it appears there are cases that show otherwise listed on the link he sent. In theory that is how jury's should work. From said page:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]
Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.
Reading through all of it, it's exactly as I thought it was, but I kept the complexity out
You cannot give jury instructions related to jury nullification. The judge can't get anywhere near the topic, and lawyers cannot directly argue the jury should acquit based on the law being unjust (they can certainly imply it though)
You cannot have already decided your verdict before the case, including based on the law involved. This is generally a moot point, because jury selection should catch this. If it doesn't and you didn't lie, then that's on the judge
So, they will never tell you that you have this power as a juror. But you do, in all cases
The only complicated part is on the part of the judge and the defense
Yeah, much of the issues brought up seem to be tied to prohibition where if guilty charges increased dramatically (roughly from 3 to 30 percent) it would say they are entering with a predetermined thought of going against the law. The other common cases brought up were all tied to racism.