Jury Nullification (1 Viewer)

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
17,394
Reaction score
8,304
Age
48
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
What do you guys think if Jury Nullification? No surprise that I am all for it.
I started thinking more about this from the menthol cigarette ban thread. Someone had mentioned that people need to follow the law, but I asked the question of whether they thought all laws were just.
If I am on the jury for any victimless crime case (Any possession or sale of a controlled substance, any firearm possession case or anything else that I deem unconstitutional or unjust) I am voting not guilty.
The only exception may be if a legislator, judge, governor, or law enforcement officer is on trial for one of those types of cases. If they created or enforced the law on others, then they should be held to the same standard.

 
Also if you are on a jury and the judge says, "You must only..." or "You must not consider..." feel free to ignore him and do what you need to do.
 
Also if you are on a jury and the judge says, "You must only..." or "You must not consider..." feel free to ignore him and do what you need to do.

I mean, you can do that, but it's just going to get overturned on appeal. The appellate system is in part designed to stop juries from ignoring the law.

But, from a more philosophical point of view, I agree that all laws aren't just. The problem is who gets to decide which laws are just and which are unjust? In theory in the U.S. that is done by electing people who then pass laws that express the will of the people. That obviously doesn't always happen, but it's probably got a better shot of happening then letting each individual decide what is or isn't just or decide what the law should be.

We do live in a Social Contract (see Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and even Mill - pretty much so the foundation of the Constitution and Libertarian thought). In that contract you give up certain rights, including the right to harm others, in exchange for the protection of society.

Of course, you could choose to live outside of that contract, but you are probably going to have to form your own country if you really want to live in the State of Nature.
 
Since we are on the Jury topic, I don't think anyone should be forced to do Jury Duty if their employer doesn't at least pay the difference in time missed at work.
For a long time i thought employers were required to do this, but my Sister in Law got screwed out of 2 days pay by Office Depot when she had jury duty once. Them aholes wouldn't even move her schedule around so she could use those days as her off days..Needless to say, she quit not long after that..
Too many people live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to miss multiple days of work unpaid (or the measly amount the give you for jury duty)
 
I mean, you can do that, but it's just going to get overturned on appeal. The appellate system is in part designed to stop juries from ignoring the law.

But, from a more philosophical point of view, I agree that all laws aren't just. The problem is who gets to decide which laws are just and which are unjust? In theory in the U.S. that is done by electing people who then pass laws that express the will of the people. That obviously doesn't always happen, but it's probably got a better shot of happening then letting each individual decide what is or isn't just or decide what the law should be.

We do live in a Social Contract (see Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and even Mill - pretty much so the foundation of the Constitution and Libertarian thought). In that contract you give up certain rights, including the right to harm others, in exchange for the protection of society.

Of course, you could choose to live outside of that contract, but you are probably going to have to form your own country if you really want to live in the State of Nature.
I don't see this being an appeal type of situation. If, as a juror, I say not guilty because I am taking more or less into consideration than the judge instructs, the more likely situation is a hung jury or an acquittal. Also, I never have to say why I am voting Not Guilty. Those are not appeal situations right? I thought the appellate system is there for the defendants who are found guilty when there is a process irregularity.


Ask a libertarian about the social contract and they are likely to say, "I didn't sign a damn thing." This includes the Constitution as Lysander Spooner explains. in "No Treason"
Amazon product ASIN 1938357000
 
I don't see this being an appeal type of situation. If, as a juror, I say not guilty because I am taking more or less into consideration than the judge instructs, the more likely situation is a hung jury or an acquittal. Also, I never have to say why I am voting Not Guilty. Those are not appeal situations right? I thought the appellate system is there for the defendants who are found guilty when there is a process irregularity.


Ask a libertarian about the social contract and they are likely to say, "I didn't sign a damn thing." This includes the Constitution as Lysander Spooner explains. in "No Treason"
Amazon product ASIN 1938357000

I think I am a Libertarian but in the classical sense of the phase, not in the way it has been corrupted by politics over the years. I am not, however, a member of the American Libertarian Party which I think has severely lost it's way in the past 20 years or so. (By the way, I also think Ayn Rand had some interesting ideas, but I think the Rand Institute only bothered to read Atlas Shrugged and didn't read her philosophy books on Objectivism.)

I think Libertarians who say that never read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, or Mill. And those are the foundations of our Constitution, which is effectively a Social Contract, and of true Libertarian philosophy. And while they didn't "sign it", they do choose to live in this country and they did have the opportunity to vote for, or against, the people who are tasked with maintaining the balance in that Social Contract/Constitution between individual rights and the government violating those individual rights.

In short, any Libertarian who says they didn't enter into the Social Contract is actually an Anarchist, not a Libertarian. Actual Libertarians, in the tradition of Locke and Mill in particular, recognize that there are certain restraints on unchecked liberty. Or, more precisely, that once you harm another, it is not longer liberty, but becomes license. The Constitution is simply a contract that defines the limits of the government's power to do things, including limiting under what circumstances they can limit personal liberty, specifically when it comes into conflict with someone else's liberty. And that happens all the time.

So, I mean, if people want to be Anarchists, that's cool, but they are really going to have to find someplace else to do that because by living in this country, you are consenting to the terms and conditions of the Social Contract as reflected in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, Spooner, whose book you link above, was actually an Anarchist, not a Libertarian.

As far as the appellate system, what is appealable is if a decision is clearly contrary to the facts and the law, it's not just for "technicalities." However, you are right that the State cannot appeal a not guilty verdict. But a guilty verdict that is contrary to the facts and/or law can be reversed and remanded for a new trial or just overturned.

However, jury nullification also applies in civil cases where either side can appeal a decision and, while it's rare, those cases can also be reversed if the decision are contrary to the facts and law.
 
Last edited:
I think I am a Libertarian but in the classical sense of the phase, not in the way it has been corrupted by politics over the years. I am not, however, a member of the American Libertarian Party which I think has severely lost it's way in the past 20 years or so.

I think Libertarians who say that never read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, or Mill. And those are the foundations of our Constitution, which is effectively a Social Contract, and of true Libertarian philosophy. And while they didn't "sign it", they do choose to live in this country and they did have the opportunity to vote for, or against, the people who are tasked with maintaining the balance in that Social Contract/Constitution between individual rights and the government violating those individual rights.

In short, any Libertarian who says they didn't enter into the Social Contract is actually an Anarchist, not a Libertarian. Actual Libertarians, in the tradition of Locke and Mill in particular, recognize that there are certain restraints on unchecked liberty. Or, more precisely, that once you harm another, it is not longer liberty, but becomes license. The Constitution is simply a contract that defines the limits of the government's power to do things, including limiting under what circumstances they can limit personal liberty, specifically when it comes into conflict with someone else's liberty. And that happens all the time.

So, I mean, if people want to be Anarchists, that's cool, but they are really going to have to find someplace else to do that because by living in this country, you are consenting to the terms and conditions of the Social Contract as reflected in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, Spooner, whose book you link above, was actually an Anarchist, not a Libertarian.

As far as the appellate system, what is appealable is if a decision is clearly contrary to the facts and the law, it's not just for "technicalities." However, you are right that the State cannot appeal a not guilty verdict. But a guilty verdict that is contrary to the facts and/or law can be reversed and remanded for a new trial or just overturned.

However, jury nullification also applies in civil cases where either side can appeal a decision and, while it's rare, those cases can also be reversed if the decision are contrary to the facts and law.
I think you may be surprised how many libertarians are anarchists.

How about this though? If you are living in an area that is being controlled by organized crime, are you consenting to their authority because you choose to live there? You could move right?
 
I think you may be surprised how many libertarians are anarchists.

How about this though? If you are living in an area that is being controlled by organized crime, are you consenting to their authority because you choose to live there? You could move right?

I'm honestly not surprised. I know it's a lot. I just think that they are calling themselves the wrong thing if they call themselves Libertarians. I think they only use the term because it is palatable for political reasons.

Organized crime is different and this is frankly a disingenuous argument since you know that. Organized crime rules by coercion and they are not the government. And, all rhetoric to the contrary, the government rules by consent of the governed, not coercion. Especially since the Constitution limits that power and does not allow coercion. And, if coercion happens, the Courts are there to redress grievances and, at some point, if the oppression is bad enough, there is a right to revolution.

Organized Crime doesn't establish the "law of the land." The government was established to some extent by the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. And then it was all formalized in the U.S. Constitution which, contrary to popular belief only limits government power and reserves all other rights to the individual.
 
I'm honestly not surprised. I know it's a lot. I just think that they are calling themselves the wrong thing if they call themselves Libertarians. I think they only use the term because it is palatable for political reasons.

Organized crime is different and this is frankly a disingenuous argument since you know that. Organized crime rules by coercion and they are not the government. And, all rhetoric to the contrary, the government rules by consent of the governed, not coercion. Especially since the Constitution limits that power and does not allow coercion. And, if coercion happens, the Courts are there to redress grievances and, at some point, if the oppression is bad enough, there is a right to revolution.

Organized Crime doesn't establish the "law of the land." The government was established to some extent by the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. And then it was all formalized in the U.S. Constitution which, contrary to popular belief only limits government power and reserves all other rights to the individual.

Most libertarians I know steer clear of calling themselves big "L" Libertarians. That is more a designation of the Libertarian party. Small "l" libertarians are very diverse and they love to fight each other more than anything in the world. Anarchists also like to fight each other as they too are a diverse group (An-caps to An-coms).

Government absolutely rules by coercion. I am not sure how anyone can say otherwise. Its not all voluntary right?
I also think you know that drafters of the Constitution would not understand how our current federal government has 20% of the power that it does if the Constitution really did restrain the government. If there is a social contract, then the Constitution would have to mean something and not just ignored most of the time or have judges change the meaning without legislation or amendment.

Jury nullification for federal crimes would come into play if someone is charged with a crime and it is not evident the Constitution ever gave the feds the power to regulate whatever the crime was about.
 
Most libertarians I know steer clear of calling themselves big "L" Libertarians. That is more a designation of the Libertarian party. Small "l" libertarians are very diverse and they love to fight each other more than anything in the world. Anarchists also like to fight each other as they too are a diverse group (An-caps to An-coms).

Government absolutely rules by coercion. I am not sure how anyone can say otherwise. Its not all voluntary right?
I also think you know that drafters of the Constitution would not understand how our current federal government has 20% of the power that it does if the Constitution really did restrain the government. If there is a social contract, then the Constitution would have to mean something and not just ignored most of the time or have judges change the meaning without legislation or amendment.

Jury nullification for federal crimes would come into play if someone is charged with a crime and it is not evident the Constitution ever gave the feds the power to regulate whatever the crime was about.
It is voluntary and even if it's not all voluntary doesn't mean that they rule by coercion when the vast majority of our lives and what they do is voluntary. In the vast majority of cases all the laws say is that your liberty extends to the point that you would harm someone else and no serious libertarian or Libertarian would disagree with that. Although I guess all Anarchists would.

And, when I use Libertarian with a big "L", I use it to differentiate between the general idea that freedom is good and classical liberal philosophy from guys like Locke and Mill because the word "liberal" has lost its original meaning due to politics. Of course, the phase Libertarian has also lost it's true meaning because of politics too.

I mean, nobody is stopping anyone from leaving and they aren't really forcing anyone to do much of anything. I live a really free life and am free to say or do pretty much so anything I want without government intrusion as long as I don't harm others in the process. That being said, I think there are things that should be legal that are not legal and there are laws I don't agree with, drugs being the largest example, but there are ways to change those laws and those things are starting to happen. And the alternative is to just let people individually decide which laws to follow and which laws not to follow. That seems great in theory, but the truth is that isn't going to work in practice.

I agree that the government has gone far past the powers granted to it in the Constitution, but I don't think it is even close to the point of coercion. And, like I said, there are mechanism to change all of those things.

I mean, I guess you could argue that the concept of Judicial Review by SCOTUS as created in Marbury v. Madison is wrong and every single citizen has the right to determine and enforce what is or isn't Constitutional, but I don't think you could make a very good argument for that given the Federalist Papers. And, I don't think it works for a practical point of view.

In the end, I get the attraction of jury nullification for laws that seem unjust, but I think the down side of it is far too great. It's all fine and good when we use it to stop people from going to jail for smoking weed, but what happens if a jury decides to let a child molester or rapist go because that's a moral judgment and shouldn't be an issue for criminal law?

Finally, people make these claims about Judges "making the law" all the time, but I think that is usually because they don't really understand the process or how law works. All laws require some level of interpretation out of necessity so you have to look at the intent of the drafter. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Beyond that, outside of Louisiana which is a Civil Law state (and some exceptions for particular areas of law like Family Law in other states), the Common Law is the law of the land. And, the Common Law is based on precedent, but the Judges don't make the law so much as they are forced to interpret it when it's unclear. And they interpret it in the light of what was intended by those who wrote the law.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the government has gone far past the powers granted to it in the Constitution, but I don't think it is even close to the point of coercion. And, like I said, there are mechanism to change all of those things.

Government does not operate by coercion? Ok... Try not paying your taxes, or ignoring a warrant.

You can get back to me on that one.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom