Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Jury mutiny

Page 2 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Dec 2010, 3:28 pm

I am all in favour of jury nullification, provided that this is a decision of a jury reached at the end of a fair trial.

Fairness cuts both ways. A trial must be fair to the accused, but it must also be fair to the state, which has legitimate interests in the preseveration of peace and order. A juror coming into a trial with a bias in favour of the accused is just as unacceptable as a juror coming in with a bias in favour of the state.

If, after hearing both sides and the totality of the evidence, a juror decides, "this prosecution is dumb," then so be it. If all twelve decide, then the decision is properly reached. But when a jury comes in with the preconceived notion that they will acquit, then it is prejudicial and improper.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Dec 2010, 4:23 pm

visagrunt wrote:
I am all in favour of jury nullification, provided that this is a decision of a jury reached at the end of a fair trial.

Fairness cuts both ways. A trial must be fair to the accused, but it must also be fair to the state, which has legitimate interests in the preseveration of peace and order. A juror coming into a trial with a bias in favour of the accused is just as unacceptable as a juror coming in with a bias in favour of the state.

If, after hearing both sides and the totality of the evidence, a juror decides, "this prosecution is dumb," then so be it. If all twelve decide, then the decision is properly reached. But when a jury comes in with the preconceived notion that they will acquit, then it is prejudicial and improper.


If the jury decides to acquit just because the are ornery, there is nothing the judge can do. A not guilty verdict cannot be set aside.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Dec 2010, 5:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
If the jury decides to acquit just because the are ornery, there is nothing the judge can do. A not guilty verdict cannot be set aside.

ruveyn


Yes, but only if they have heard all of the evidence and argument in a fair and unbiased fashion. A juror intent on mischief is best advised to behave until after the judge has delivered the charge to the jury. At that point, jurors can be as ornery as they like.


_________________
--James