tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post4771086345993806590..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: the injustice of jury nullificationJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-25976126159326102662010-06-19T21:16:21.818-07:002010-06-19T21:16:21.818-07:00anonymous,
Good points all. It's been a whil...<b>anonymous</b>, <br /><br />Good points all. It's been a while since I read St. John's article; I wonder how fair he is to "proponents of jury nullification [who] have convincingly argued that nullifying juries <i>make law</i>." <i>Unmaking</i> law, even in the piecemeal fashion you describe, seems very different, both in practice and in principle, from <i>making</i> law.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-4954312146091919112010-06-19T19:35:42.705-07:002010-06-19T19:35:42.705-07:00Hi Jim,
Richard St. John states: “Proponents of j...Hi Jim,<br /><br />Richard St. John states: “Proponents of jury nullification have convincingly argued that nullifying juries make law.” He agrees with these proponents, then proceeds to argue why it is unjust; mainly that it is an undemocratic way to make law. But, juries do not make law. This is a strawman argument. <br /><br />The best a jury can do is to refuse to convict a defendant for transgressing a law. When this happens often enough, with enough juries, the law is rejected by the people. Thus, a given jury can only acquit a defendant, many juries together can only reject a law; neither can “make law” from the jury box. Strawman.<br /><br />It generally takes many juries refusing to convict before a law is nullified. The aggregated composition of all these juries will “reflect an adequate demographic sample of the community,” provided the jurors are selected at random from the community. <br /><br />St. John also argues that the jury has minoritarian voting rules which undermine democratic rule. The implication is that democratic rule is our highest standard. But democratic rule is, as Ben Franklin said, “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Minoritarian voting rules protect the sheep from the wolves when the other checks on government fail. That jury nullification is patently undemocratic is a very good thing for us sheep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-37178765850223459442010-03-22T19:19:39.432-07:002010-03-22T19:19:39.432-07:00To say jurors are entirely without check is not th...To say jurors are entirely without check is not the last word. If they let a truly dangerous or wicked criminal go free, they have to live not only with their consciences, but in their community--knowing that a criminal is loose, and that their friends and neighbors might blame them for the miscarriage of justice.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-48172546950108334542010-03-21T21:10:25.804-07:002010-03-21T21:10:25.804-07:00With what you said about a "check without a c...With what you said about a "check without a check", would you say that this violates the separation of powers/idea of democracy, giving these people power over the laws that they're not supposed to/not licensed to have? How would you refute?emeraldcathttp://www.webs.com/emeraldcatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-25669786218838409092010-03-12T14:14:20.369-08:002010-03-12T14:14:20.369-08:00In response to James who said: I would argue that ...In response to James who said: I would argue that nullification is inextricably a part of the whole history of juries.<br /><br />Yeah. Well just because it's part of the history of juries doesn't mean it has a legitimate place today.I think in the earlier part of our history, it had more relevance since democracy and our judicial system were in early development. I would guess (although I'm not sure on this one) that there was a different set of reasons which necessitated the need for nullifications. I think it's probably less so today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-66832188100740036472010-03-09T17:03:48.636-08:002010-03-09T17:03:48.636-08:00The difference between this and other institutions...The difference between this and other institutions: the jury answers to no one, at least when it comes to an acquittal. It's the check-without-a-check.<br /><br />I'd argue for nullification from a slightly different starting point: if civil disobedience is justified, whether on social contract grounds or by appeals to "higher law," nullification is similarly justified. (Civil disobedience has similar risks of being used "poorly," yet intuitively people think of it in positive terms.)Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-81556308249743808632010-03-09T12:47:27.776-08:002010-03-09T12:47:27.776-08:00"The potential for, say, racist-based nullifi..."The potential for, say, racist-based nullification seemed to outweigh any vision of the jury as a check on tyranny."<br /><br />There is that, for sure. Of course any popular check on tyranny requires that the public itself not be tyrannically inclined. If they are, I'm not sure any institutions, even constitutional ones, but especially popular ones, are going to do much good.James Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431950784819780004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-86477035393666064802010-03-08T17:52:24.771-08:002010-03-08T17:52:24.771-08:00Among the anti-nullifiers, one can detect a certai...Among the anti-nullifiers, one can detect a certain anti-populist sentiment that, as William Dwyer argues, would place jury trials in jeopardy. <br /><br />Regarding the history of juries, I got into a fairly passionate argument this past weekend with someone who framed the debate solely in terms of "equal protection of the law." The potential for, say, racist-based nullification seemed to outweigh any vision of the jury as a check on tyranny.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-41081860445327603782010-03-08T13:54:34.648-08:002010-03-08T13:54:34.648-08:00"[J]uries can neither represent nor embody th..."[J]uries can neither represent nor embody the community"<br /><br />Uhmm, they don't represent the community? That's pretty directly contrary to what I was told each time I was called for jury duty! I'm not quite sure what to make of someone who proceeds from a premise that contradicts the premise upon which juries are constructed.<br /><br />And those who oppose jury nullification seem to me to not recognize the history of the development of juries. Originally they were told what verdict to return. Only through persistent refusal to obey, a de facto form of nullification, did the modern concept of the jury as having ultimate power of judgment come into being. I would argue that nullification is inextricably a part of the whole history of juries.James Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431950784819780004noreply@blogger.com