[Peace-discuss] Jury Nullification

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Again, there are higher courts with different biases to which cases can 
be taken.

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> The local community sets its standards for justice/injustice based upon
>>     
> its values.
>
> Yes; but within certain parameters, this is true.  It is not always for the
> good either.   Nevertheless, it is always problematic to define where the
> boundaries of a local community begin and end.  Do we stop at the state? The
> county? The municipality? The neighborhood or development within a
> municipality? The city block or rural route?  It is also problematic as to
> who in the community sets the standards.  Is it a majority, a plurality, or
> a minority; is it a majority, plurality, or minority of the registered
> voters, of those who actually vote on those standards in a referendum or is
> this a virtual or presumed vote on unspecified and unstated standards?
>
>   
>> Jury nullification tends to erode central control of 
>> values and permit local interpretations
>> of what is a desirable lifestyle.  It favours grassroots governance.
>>     
>
> It can also favor or promote vigilantism, mob rule, disregard for minority
> opinions and rights, conformity to popular demands and values, succumbing to
> peer pressure not to go against the views of one's neighbors even if you
> know they are wrong, among others, such as cherry picking of juries and the
> manipulation of jury selection.
>
>   
>> There is nothing that says that the 12 people on a jury have to agree on 
>> the verdict.
>>     
>
> True enough
>
>   
>> They have to agree in order to convict, but they don't have to agree
>>     
>
> I understand and agree with the first part; but I do not understand what you
> are trying to say in the last part. Are you saying that, while it takes 12
> members of the jury to agree to a "guilty" or to a "not guilty" finding for
> the decision to be one of those, jury members may not always agree on a
> decision which can result in a hung jury.  While this is also true, it means
> that one person can hang a jury.  However, while the effect may be the same
> as jury nullification, the question is does that comprise jury nullification
> or not.   I would contend that attributing the label of jury nullification
> to such an instance or to those instance where the jury finds the defendant
> guilty or not guilty contrary to the presented evidence and/or the pertinent
> law turns on the motivation of the juror or jurors in question for that
> trial.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
> Johnson
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: Ron Szoke
> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; C. G. Estabrook
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Jury Nullification
>
> The local community sets its standards for justice/injustice based upon 
> its values.
> That is actually a pretty good thing.  TV and Mass media has attempted to
> standardize culture and values across the country.   I can't imagine how 
> that can be good.
>
> Connecticut might with validity forbid activities that Kentucky with 
> equal validity allows.  Saline county and Lake county, both
> in Illinois are populated by very different people with different 
> lifestyles and goals.  They can decide what is just and unjust in
> their locales.  Jury nullification tends to erode central control of 
> values and permit local interpretations
> of what is a desirable lifestyle.  It favours grassroots governance.
>
> It seems to me that all of the items you list below are instances of 
> jury nullification.
>
> There is nothing that says that the 12 people on a jury have to agree on 
> the verdict.
> They have to agree in order to convict, but they don't have to agree.
>
> Ron Szoke wrote:
>   
>> I'm still not clear how one can draw the distinction between a
>>     
> misapplication of 
>   
>> the law and a direct appeal to the jury's intuitions about injustice.  
>>
>> The classic formulation is that a jury of peers represents "the conscience
>>     
> of the 
>   
>> community," I believe, which is how some obscenity prosecutions by
>>     
> politically 
>   
>> ambitious prosecutors are derailed.  
>>
>> Less politically freighted are some euthanasia cases, as in a few early
>>     
> cases 
>   
>> involving Dr. Kervokian, it seems, where there was a murder charge, but
>>     
> the 
>   
>> jury decides that it was a mercy to end the pain & suffering in certain
>>     
> terminal 
>   
>> & hopeless cases, & so acquits.  
>>
>> Also in point are some putative murder cases I've heard about in which a 
>> horribly deformed baby is born & is immediately killed by a parent,
>>     
> apparently 
>   
>> in the belief that the newborn will soon die anyway, & could never
>>     
> possibly  
>   
>> have anything approaching a normal human life even if it did survive.   
>> Reportedly, in some such cases the jury has refused to convict, tho there
>>     
> is no 
>   
>> doubt  that the defendant actually did what he is charged with doing.  
>>
>> Are these cases of jury nullification, & what conclusion do we draw from
>>     
> that?
>   
>> -- Ron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090202/04c4708a/attachment.html