Dad acquitted in drunk drivers death

[grue 1]

I'd rather have a hundred murderers free than an innocent person in prison.

cavete terrae.

[grue 1]

Jury nullification, in fact, is one of the greatest freedoms.

When the laws become tyrannical it's our duty to make sure they are fought in every way possible.

I am NOT applying that to this specific case, but I can explicitly state that if I am ever on a jury for a case where someone is accused of a crime where he or she did not affect the health, liberty or property of a non-consenting adult then I am very likely going to do my best to nullify.

cavete terrae.

[champu 1]

grue

Jury nullification, in fact, is one of the greatest freedoms.

When the laws become tyrannical it's our duty to make sure they are fought in every way possible.

I am NOT applying that to this specific case, but I can explicitly state that if I am ever on a jury for a case where someone is accused of a crime where he or she did not affect the health, liberty or property of a non-consenting adult then I am very likely going to do my best to nullify.

While I appreciate your spirit, the problem I have with this is how similiar it is to returning a guilty verdict not because he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what he was on trial for, but because he was just "A crappy person who we all felt ought to be in jail."

[grue 1]

champu

***Jury nullification, in fact, is one of the greatest freedoms.

When the laws become tyrannical it's our duty to make sure they are fought in every way possible.

I am NOT applying that to this specific case, but I can explicitly state that if I am ever on a jury for a case where someone is accused of a crime where he or she did not affect the health, liberty or property of a non-consenting adult then I am very likely going to do my best to nullify.

While I appreciate your spirit, the problem I have with this is how similiar it is to returning a guilty verdict not because he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what he was on trial for, but because he was just "A crappy person who we all felt ought to be in jail."

I can understand that (your point, not the hypothetical). For me, I would always rather have a "guilty" person free than the other way around.

cavete terrae.

[dpreguy 14]

No one is contending this guy isn't guilty of the three assassination murders and shooting the 4th in the face, who miraculously survived. Not even our gutless governor is saying the guy isn't totally guilty. He just is saying "Nah I don't want to do this".

Let's just say we disagree on the issue of a juror saying the same thing. Juror: "Yeah. The guy is clearly guilty. But, nah, I don't want to convict him for my own personal reasons."

[BillyVance 35]

grue

I'd rather have a hundred murderers free than an innocent person in prison.

Until one of them goes on a killing spree that happens to include you or somebody you love. You might change your mind.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[normiss 900]

Unless it was you or someone you know wrongly accuse and convicted.
Which would appear to happen more often than your scenario.

[grue 1]

BillyVance

***I'd rather have a hundred murderers free than an innocent person in prison.

Until one of them goes on a killing spree that happens to include you or somebody you love. You might change your mind.

It's that line of thinking that is used to pass horrible laws by exploiting fears. I am not willing to give up my life to support the illusion that our system is working, not can I expect someone else to.

cavete terrae.

[GeorgiaDon 381]

Quote

The concept of jury nullification can be compared to a governor refusing to sign the authorization for an execution, even after the defendant is properly and legally sentenced to die, and all appeals are exhausted. He substitutes his own beliefs. This is wrong, and works, in effect, a destruction of our system of criminal justice. It, in effect, is nothing more then one guy saying, "Nah, for my own personal reasons, I don't want to follow the law set forth by the legislature". Same for juries if they choose nullification.

I don't think these are the same thing at all. The law recognizes the right of the governor (in most or maybe all states) to pardon or apply clemency. The governor has a lawful right to commute a death sentence. Of course, voters may exact a cost for that later. Juries have no such right, except perhaps in New Hampshire, though the bit I've read of that law doesn't make it clear that juries are free to nullify a murder charge if they decide the victim was "unworthy".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Shotgun 1]

Man Sentenced to Prison for Murdering a Drunk Driver

OK, definitely a different situation, but still he murdered someone who had been driving around drunk. Did she get what she deserved?

[rehmwa 2]

Shotgun

Man Sentenced to Prison for Murdering a Drunk Driver

OK, definitely a different situation, but still he murdered someone who had been driving around drunk. Did she get what she deserved?

The kid 'deserved' a trial for drunk driving and the car accident and whatever the process brought to her. Society did not get the chance to administer it. She also deserved the chance to recover from that and hopefully lead a better life beyond ending it as a drunk driver. She did not get the chance for that also.

He deserved a court case and punishment for his actions - he got that. Fortunately for society and that guy, no one just 'decided' to skip the whole 'law' part and take a vigilante stance.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

jclalor

It's my understanding, that even if every member of the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty, they still have the option to acquit him. I'm sure you would know much more than I would, but don't juries have the right to acquit based on nothing more than their disagreement with the law, or their feeling that the defendant does not deserve to be punished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Jury nullification is a very debatable issue. I am generally in favor of it. Others are opposed. I see valid arguments being given on each side. I just trust twelve people with facts over a group of politicians dealing with theory, party politics, re-election bids, etc.

The jury has no 'right' articulated. In fact, prosecutors and judges will likely emphasize that the jury is sworn to uphold the law if they think jury nullification is possible. However, there just is no mechanism to force them to follow the law. If their conscience dictates acquittal...what happens in the jury room tends to stay there.

The only way to eliminate jury nullification is to eliminate juries or give them such oversight that they are irrelevant. I'm not ok with that.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.