tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post217688857476669630..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: jury nullification and "parameters of acceptable deviance"Jim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-62364522378543092732014-09-25T17:04:17.693-07:002014-09-25T17:04:17.693-07:00can you please summarize this post in simpler term...can you please summarize this post in simpler terms?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-37294873875461284412010-04-06T17:49:29.964-07:002010-04-06T17:49:29.964-07:00Anonymous, great question.
Edwards' definitio...<b>Anonymous</b>, great question.<br /><br />Edwards' definition is logically defensible, although it runs up against the common perception that nullification is strictly about acquittals. Indeed, the word "nullification" itself seems to suppose that the law or the charge is being nullified, a negation rather than a conviction.<br /><br />I don't have a copy of <i>Black's</i> on hand. A definition that works with Edwards' is found in <i>West's Encyclopedia of American Law</i>, 2nd edition: "Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict." <br /><br />Regardless of the definition, you could argue that widespread nullification, by devaluing the rule of law, would likely lead to a society in which justice is a matter of individual whims rather than principles.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-2179841328811929062010-04-06T13:41:54.200-07:002010-04-06T13:41:54.200-07:00Hi Jim,
Thanks for the helpful posts. One questio...Hi Jim,<br /><br />Thanks for the helpful posts. One question: do you think Edwards' broad definition of jury nullification--that is, including wrongful convictions--is accurate , and, could it stand in a round? Other sources I've read have presented a narrower definition--applying only to acquittals. <br /><br />Is there an authoritative definition you would recommend? From Black's Law Dictionary, perhaps?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-53981241597658032302010-03-17T18:55:05.034-07:002010-03-17T18:55:05.034-07:00Brian, thanks for dropping by and offering excelle...<b>Brian,</b> thanks for dropping by and offering excellent points. They show quite definitively that Edwards' "logical equivalence argument" is weak, even if for different reasons.<br /><br />I think we might even strengthen the "remedies argument" with a little dubious math. <br /><br />1. The procedural safeguards, presumption of innocence, and lack of appeal success (for reasons of insufficient evidence) make false convictions rare. <br /><br />2. False acquittals are also rare, because, among other things, juries aren't aware of nullifying powers, or are instructed not to nullify.<br /><br />3. Nevertheless, let's presume that false acquittals are five times as prevalent as false convictions.<br /><br />4. However, let's also say that the moral horror of a false conviction is 100, and the moral horror of a false acquittal is 10. (The saying, trite as it is, made math.)<br /><br />5. Thus, even if the remedy reduces the number of false convictions by a significant amount--making false acquittals 8x as prevalent--the fact that one false conviction causes 100 units of moral horror still outweighs the equivalent 80 units of moral horror caused by false acquittals in a given timeframe.<br /><br />It should be pointed out, again, that this math is sheer speculation for the sake of argument. Employ it at your own risk.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-36849837501814837632010-03-17T11:31:58.400-07:002010-03-17T11:31:58.400-07:00I disagree with that last bit of your post. It'...I disagree with that last bit of your post. It's true, there are asymmetries between convictions and acquittals, but not such that excessively punitive juries are less of a risk to justice. I'm sure you've heard the old adage "rather let 10 guilty men go free than punish one innocent man." It's trite and overused (yet still often forgotten by policymakers, go figure), but it is one of the principles our justice system is founded on. Hence the presumption of innocence and high standard of proof for criminal cases. Neg would be hard-pressed to argue that standing alone (not considering remedies yet), a wrongful conviction is less unjust than a wrongful acquittal.<br /><br />Obviously though, the remedies change the formula. You mention appeals, but I think an Aff could make a good argument that appeals are an insufficient remedial measure. I'm afraid I don't have any academic evidence to back me up here, but based on my experience and what my law professors have told me, I've found that it's surprisingly hard to convince an Appellate Court to overturn a jury verdict solely on the basis of insufficient evidence. Judges prefer to let jury verdicts stand when possible. Partly to preserve the power of the jury in our system, and partly because they're often elected officials and know the next day's headline will be "JUDGE LETS MURDERER GO FREE." So even with the remedies, overly punitive juries pose more of a threat to justice as understood by our system. Again, no academic sources to back this up, so weigh it as you will. (Just for background: I'm an ex-LDer, current junior in college, interned at a DA's office for a while)<br /><br />This probably wouldn't even come up in a debate, but that last claim of yours intrigued me. :-)Brian Hettingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07496347764503665723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-76724436622308994092010-03-05T10:31:33.121-08:002010-03-05T10:31:33.121-08:00A "parameter of acceptable deviance" is ...A "parameter of acceptable deviance" is society's wiggle room for certain kinds of illegal actions--"deviance" in context means "criminal behavior." The point is that society doesn't frown on all offenses, especially those it perceives as slight.<br /><br />For instance, even though going 62 in a 60 mph zone is technically illegal, "everybody does it," and people who are ticketed for going 62 are usually quite incensed.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-20133359046251267772010-03-04T20:55:12.374-08:002010-03-04T20:55:12.374-08:00what are PADs?what are PADs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-31408951734856547792010-02-23T15:43:59.469-08:002010-02-23T15:43:59.469-08:00Good shit. Thanks.Good shit. Thanks.Ayn Randnoreply@blogger.com