If you were a juror, how would you vote for an act you don't think should be illegal?

[Kellhound]

No, I am advocating for individual morality. You are advocating obeying authority under all circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -



You underestimate my levels of vigilantism. Also, jury duty is not something I have anything to gain from, personally. I could very easily just be labeled an unfit juror. I refuse to be a part of something I view as immoral, unless I have something substantial to gain from it. That's how humans work.

No, I am saying paying the consequences for breaking the law. The individual morality was in choosing to break the law in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

That's kind of what democracy is.

Hell, our second amendment is literally put into place so that the citizenry can keep themselves armed and fight its own government should the government become tyrannical.

Anyway, to answer the thread: It depends on the situation, but I'd have a real hard time declaring a man guilty of something if there was no wrong in what they did.

Edit: And the results of the poll for this thread is not surprising. I seem to remember a study done a few years back showing that jury trials were more punishing than bench trials. The world isn't black and white, but a whole lot of people try and make it that way.

No democracy is the collective agreement of the law by the majority.

- - - Updated - - -

The appellate courts have no more or less ability to judge the legality of a law.
It's also worth noting that a law may be sound, but its application in this instance, is not sound.
Such a matter is not for the courts to decide, but rather, by the jury.
An act may be within the bounds of a law, the law itself is sound, yet, the the perpetrator is still not 'guilty'.
Should that man go to prison, or not?
I dunno.
I could certainly see myself refusing to convict, regardless of the clear 'guilt'.

The appellate courts (especially the courts of last resort) are the arbitrators of the meaning of the law.

[Jonnusthegreat]

No, I am saying paying the consequences for breaking the law. The individual morality was in choosing to break the law in the first place.

It all depends on how you value the morality of obeying immoral laws. Personally, I believe as Gandhi did that civil disobedience is important for societal progress.

[mbg]

Yes, because it is NOT a jury's responsibility to rule on the legality of a law, that is the responsibility of the appellate courts.

Oh, but it is. The Jury is the final check and balance against a Tyrannical Government. If you disagree with the law, you vote for acquittal. Enough acquittals will render the law null, and then it is the responsibility of the law makers to change or remove the law. It happened with prohibition. That was a classic case of nullification. If anyone that is a juror and does exactly what the judge tells them, they are fools and should be immediately removed from jury service. Unfortunately, these kings with robes never want to inform the jury of their rights and responsibilities. It would make them look bad if they keep having juries nullifying laws.

- - - Updated - - -

depends say it was a charge for using weed, then its a clear cut law and i'd vote guilty even if thought i think weed should be legal. However, if it was case of say a store owner shooting a shoplifter that wouldn't stop when we told to wait for police, innocent, or the recent case of the woman that ran down the person was taking her purse, she is innocent in my eyes already.

Well, if you think that weed should not be illegal, nullify the law.

There was a recent case where someone convinced the jury to nullify a law.

Google Doug Darrel Marijuana to read more.

[toomes211]

Juries absolutely have the right to not convict or to add additional charges they think are valid based on their own interpretations of the case. That is why there's also a jury selection process intended to weed out those who are biased or who would attempt to unfairly apply the law. The jury has broad powers in many cases and it's not limited by much, if anything.

[Kaleredar]

It all depends on how you value the morality of obeying immoral laws. Personally, I believe as Gandhi did that civil disobedience is important for societal progress.

Perhaps, but he and other civil rights leaders like MLK were prepared to, and did, go to prison for their actions. They didn't break the law and then try to run away or hope to be let off scott-free.

[Mormolyce]

I would have to recuse myself on the grounds that I'm likely to vote to acquit regardless.

Because no one likes being a juror.
You do your civic duty and that's it.
If you imagine in some way that you're going to change the law in some way by getting all sneaky when it comes time to do so...odds are good that such won't happen. You're selected randomly, and court cases are just as random. And if you're that "lucky" to get such a case, then you aren't doing your civic duty by deciding things with your beliefs and have no business being on a jury to begin with.

Equivalently your civic duty requires you to act to get things that shouldn't be illegal decriminalised.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually that is well within a jurors right in America. Its called juror nullification

I believe most juries have the power of jury nullification. You inherited from the British system like many others.

[De Lupe]

I wouldn't be on a jury.

I would make myself seem like the most biased, smallest-minded person in the world and I would tell the judge directly that I was easily swayed by money or public opinion or threats and the I would intentionally vote with the majority of the jury, regardless of innocence or guilt, for the sole purpose of ending the trial as fast as possible. I would give that judge every reason possible to declare me unfit for jury duty.

I refuse to be on a jury. I've avoided registering to vote for the sole reason of not getting a summon.

[HumbleDuck]

I'd vote guilty.
You should fight for what you believe in, but undermining the law isn't the way to do it.

[Ghostpanther]

You should vote guilty. I would. But it is also not hard to get out of jury duty. When they ask if there is any reason you should not be picked as a juror, you tell them your bias about something and they will ask what. Tell them. We all are to some degree about some things.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It would depend, but I voted. Because if I made on a jury its because I was honest if they let me on anyway or fucked up. I'm Not voting guilty if I dont agree with the. It is also not illegal for me to do so, which is the whole for a jury to be objective, unbiased and find the law. I'm not a robot the law is not always right or absolute.

There are 12 others aswell and as one person who has to sleep at night I'm going to vote in part based on my morals that hasn't been made illegal yet!

[Jonnusthegreat]

Perhaps, but he and other civil rights leaders like MLK were prepared to, and did, go to prison for their actions. They didn't break the law and then try to run away or hope to be let off scott-free.

I honestly don't know, is there a prison sentence for not fulfilling jury duty?

[Shadowferal]

I honestly don't know, is there a prison sentence for not fulfilling jury duty?

It depends on the judge (and the state law). More often than not it's a fine.

[Ghostpanther]

I honestly don't know, is there a prison sentence for not fulfilling jury duty?

It is a crime not to show up for Jury duty when you have been selected. What punishment however, may not be a prison sentence. But it is not hard to get out of Jury Duty. You can call them and say you have a family emergency and explain what is it or when you do go for the selection process, simply let them know of your own personal bias and beliefs. You may not selected if one of the lawyers objects.

[Mrbleedinggums]

In the United States, jury nullification first appeared just before the American Revolutionary War, when colonial juries frequently exercised their nullification power, principally in maritime cases and cases implicating free speech. Jury nullification became so common that many British prosecutors gave up trying maritime cases because conviction seemed hopeless.[30] In the pre-Civil War era, juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[31] possibly as often as 60% of the time.[32] This resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition, the Eighteenth amendment.

In a well-known example of jury nullification, at the end of Wild Bill Hickok's trial for the manslaughter of Davis Tutt in 1865, Judge Sempronius Boyd gave the jury two instructions. He first instructed the jury that a conviction was its only option under the law, he then instructed them that they could apply the unwritten law of the "fair fight" and acquit. Hickok was acquitted, a verdict that was not popular with the public.[33][34]

From wikipedia. It comes from old English law.

I'm glad at least SOMEONE knows about jury nullification. It's like people don't know about their own judicial system, but it's my country America we're talking about here. All the people saying "you're not here to change laws" "it's not your job to decide if the law should be in place" are just uneducated and misinformed.

[Kaleredar]

I honestly don't know, is there a prison sentence for not fulfilling jury duty?

My point is, civil disobedience shouldn't be done while under the assumption that a jury is going to vote you "not guilty" even though you broke the law.

[Jastall]

Your moral code doesn't matter as a juror. Your job is to determine whenever the person did or did no break the law.

If you want to change laws, be an activist, a politician, a fund raiser or something. Jury duty is not the place to start rethinking the rules.

[Jonnusthegreat]

My point is, civil disobedience shouldn't be done while under the assumption that a jury is going to vote you "not guilty" even though you broke the law.

Wait, no. My point was that the JUROR is the one not listening to the law. You also aren't breaking it though. You are just showing your values contrary to the law.

[Kellhound]

It all depends on how you value the morality of obeying immoral laws. Personally, I believe as Gandhi did that civil disobedience is important for societal progress.

That does not negate what i said.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, but it is. The Jury is the final check and balance against a Tyrannical Government. If you disagree with the law, you vote for acquittal. Enough acquittals will render the law null, and then it is the responsibility of the law makers to change or remove the law. It happened with prohibition. That was a classic case of nullification. If anyone that is a juror and does exactly what the judge tells them, they are fools and should be immediately removed from jury service. Unfortunately, these kings with robes never want to inform the jury of their rights and responsibilities. It would make them look bad if they keep having juries nullifying laws.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, if you think that weed should not be illegal, nullify the law.

There was a recent case where someone convinced the jury to nullify a law.

Google Doug Darrel Marijuana to read more.

No, the final check is an armed citizenry, as the golden rule is at play there.

[belfpala]

No, the final check is an armed citizenry, as the golden rule is at play there.

Got your tanks, aircraft carriers, jets, rockets, intel, counter-intel, and cyber warfare ready? lol.

[derpkitteh]

i'd tell them i'm biased so they send me home.

but, if i couldn't do that, i suppose depending on the severity, i'd either vote for or against them. like if it's pot, i'm not going to vote to convict.

but if it's pot that got someone injured due to reckless behavior, like driving while under the influence, i would vote to convict.