Borderline lifeboat situations

[Ed from OC 0]

Just curious. Were you asked your opinion about the law or did you just stand up in the middle of the room and announce it?

This was when they went juror by juror and asked us to answer some questions. One was whether there was anything that would prevent us from being impartial (or something similar; this was a while ago). I explained that I was against drug laws, but even more strongly against jury nullification. The prosecutor asked me to leave.

[Paul's Here 0]

This was when they went juror by juror and asked us to answer some questions. One was whether there was anything that would prevent us from being impartial (or something similar; this was a while ago). I explained that I was against drug laws, but even more strongly against jury nullification. The prosecutor asked me to leave.

1. What would you have done if you weren't asked whether you were against drug laws?

2. You would convict someone for doing something that shouldn't be illegal?

[Paul's Here 0]

Is not Roark's trial in The Fountainhead an example of jury nullification? The jury knew Roark was guilty of blowing up the building, but found him not guilty anyway because they recognized his moral right to do what he had done.

[RationalBiker 0]

I assume I have been selected for jury.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

The argument is about what is right.

Yes, and I think that is the point of view that Stephen is arguing from as well.

Personally speaking, I'm on the fence about jury nullification. In it's current usage, there is no way to prevent nullifcations that are based on pure whim versus nullifications based on sound, objective reasoning. In recent times, I can't think of many, if any, good cases to support jury nullification. For that reason I would say I'm generally opposed to the practice.

However, if some mechanism were in place where the jury's reasoning for nullification could be examined before judgment was pronounced, perhaps the whimsical decisions could be weeded out (perhaps resulting in mistrial), and the sound, objective reasoning could stand. I don't necessarily see jury nullification as being the same as anarchy, though it could be. Rather, I see it as potentially part of the checks and balances of the system, in this particular instance the Judicial Branch checking the Legislative branch. That only holds true though in cases where the reasoning for nullification are sound and objective.

As a side note, who thinks we will see a nullification in the case against "Dog", the bounty hunter?

[Paul's Here 0]

William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn's admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail "without meat, drink, fire and tobacco" for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.

What lawyers & judges won't tell you about juries

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The legal system of a proper society is organized and structured to serve the purpose of law, namely, the protection of individual rights. Rights are an objective fact of reality, and the determination of objective laws, and the dispensing of justice based upon those laws, are not left to the discretion of some isolated man. Our entire legal system, along with various checks and balances, is to insure that we are ruled by law established and adjudicated by objective means, This whole structure is what differentiates a proper society from anarchy.

The purpose of a jury is not to enact law, but to evaluate evidence and judge according to established law. If a juror cannot perform that function in an objective manner, he should not be on the jury. An honest juror with personal convictions against a particular law must either put his personal view aside and judge objectively according to the evidence, or he must ask to be excused from the jury because of his inability to do so. But to nullify a law by refusing to judge objectively is an act of anarchism.

For those who may have some difficulty grasping this issue, imagine the flip side of nullification. Imagine a jury member who is a staunch environmentalist, and though he concludes the defendant is not guilty of the crime of murder based on the evidence, he votes for conviction anyway because during the trial the defendant admitted to destroying the environment and the juror thinks that should be a crime as bad as murder. Sound silly? In principle, this is not silly at all. After all, if a juror can acquit by nullifying an existing law he does not like, why can't a juror pronounce guilt by enacting a law that he thinks should exist?

The curse of anarchy looms large in this issue of jury nullification, and concerned members should give careful consideration to the implications of supporting such an act.

[Paul's Here 0]

[The right of jury nullification] was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

[Ed from OC 0]

1. What would you have done if you weren't asked whether you were against drug laws?

Read again what I wrote. I wasn't asked that specifically; I volunteered it.

2. You would convict someone for doing something that shouldn't be illegal?

I'm sympathetic to trying to fight unjust laws, but I don't think jury nullification is the way to do it. The problem then becomes one of upholding law as such. That erodes the role of the legislative branch in writing laws, and substitutes the whim-of-the-moment emotion of the mob. If, say, OJ Simpson is extremely popular, should he be let off a murder charge because the jury doesn't want to convict him? Or, if someone unpopular -- say, an atheist in the thick of the bible belt -- gets unjust punishment? Or if an anti-abortion protestor kills people, but the jury feels the killings are done in the defense of fetuses and therefore are just?

I hold that the higher principle of upholding law as such (so long as a nation is mostly free) trumps the occasional case in which someone is convicted of an act that should not be a crime.

[RationalBiker 0]

I hold that the higher principle of upholding law as such (so long as a nation is mostly free) trumps the occasional case in which someone is convicted of an act that should not be a crime.

I'm not arguing entirely with what you are saying here, but people are convicted of drug and prostitution cases (I would estimate) probably by the thousands, daily. That's far from occasional even considering "the big picture". In fact, I would venture to say a substantial portion of our prison space is occupied by drug offenders, and drug cases probably represent hugely disproportionate amount of the cases tried and convicted in comparison to all real crimes. An incredible amount of law enforcement resources are devoted to the apprehension and prosecution of drug offenders. The war on drugs has led to other significant rights violations such as forfeiture laws.

While I still agree that we are "mostly free", it's inaccurate to describe the frequency of cases which violate rights as "occasional". A more accurate characterization would be "commonplace".

[RationalBiker 0]

The curse of anarchy looms large in this issue of jury nullification, and concerned members should give careful consideration to the implications of supporting such an act.

Respectfully, the implication here is that if a member comes to a different conclusion (than your own), they are either not concerned, or not careful in their considerations, or both. Is that what you meant to communicate?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This was when they went juror by juror and asked us to answer some questions. One was whether there was anything that would prevent us from being impartial (or something similar; this was a while ago). I explained that I was against drug laws, but even more strongly against jury nullification. The prosecutor asked me to leave.

Had the prosecutor known you really were a man of principle, you would have been the best juror for his trial. In his ignorance, he probably settled for second best. Yours was an admirable stance.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Is not Roark's trial in The Fountainhead an example of jury nullification?

If you think so, you missed a part of what Miss Rand wrote. Go back and read the sections after Roark's trial speech.

[Paul's Here 0]

The legal system of a proper society is organized and structured to serve the purpose of law, namely, the protection of individual rights. Rights are an objective fact of reality, and the determination of objective laws, and the dispensing of justice based upon those laws, are not left to the discretion of some isolated man. Our entire legal system, along with various checks and balances, is to insure that we are ruled by law established and adjudicated by objective means, This whole structure is what differentiates a proper society from anarchy.

The purpose of a jury is not to enact law, but to evaluate evidence and judge according to established law. If a juror cannot perform that function in an objective manner, he should not be on the jury. An honest juror with personal convictions against a particular law must either put his personal view aside and judge objectively according to the evidence, or he must ask to be excused from the jury because of his inability to do so. But to nullify a law by refusing to judge objectively is an act of anarchism.

For those who may have some difficulty grasping this issue, imagine the flip side of nullification. Imagine a jury member who is a staunch environmentalist, and though he concludes the defendant is not guilty of the crime of murder based on the evidence, he votes for conviction anyway because during the trial the defendant admitted to destroying the environment and the juror thinks that should be a crime as bad as murder. Sound silly? In principle, this is not silly at all. After all, if a juror can acquit by nullifying an existing law he does not like, why can't a juror pronounce guilt by enacting a law that he thinks should exist?

The curse of anarchy looms large in this issue of jury nullification, and concerned members should give careful consideration to the implications of supporting such an act.

Considering that its history goes back to the Magna Carta, I'm not sure how you justify such a statement. Where is the logical connection between judging a law to be immoral and anarchy? You seem to be essentially assuming that juries will act irrationally and are incapable of judging the morality of a person's action when he is charged with a crime. It is obvious that jury nullification can be misused or improperly applied, but that does not by itself invalidate the process. You are also assuming that all laws are objectively defined according to Objectivist principles. This is hardly the case, and juries have the power to put aside the application of immoral laws.

I have yet to see a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question of would those who oppose jury nullification vote to convict a person of an immoral law. Are you implying that there are no immoral laws? Suppose a starving man were accused of stealing a loaf of bread, to which he admitted doing, and the punishment was 20 years in jail. Would you convict him?

I don't see how jury nullification is an act of anarchism. The jury is not invalidating the law, nor is it repealing the law, nor is it enacting law. It is simply saying that the prosecutor has misapplied it in this case. The law continues in effect, and other trials continue in jurisdictions.

In your example above, the environmentalist juror could not rationally act in that way because there is no law in existence for him to refer to his argument. Jury nullification does not deny that the law exists nor does it deny that the actions the defendent are accused of occurred. Nor does it create law as your example would require. Even if the environmenalist thought the person should be convicted, there is no law for him to follow. It would be like saying someone is accused of passing a red light but I want to convict him of killing three people. The judgment is not that the jury votes "not guilty of the crime of murder based on the evidence" but that the law is immoral and does not apply to the actions. In other words, moral actions are not illegal. How in the world could they be?

If, indeed, "[o]ur entire legal system, along with various checks and balances, is to insure that we are ruled by law established and adjudicated by objective means" then there is nothing to worry about. Jury nullification would be even more rare than it is today (almost non-existent). Objectively speaking, nullification is only proper when laws are unjust and immoral. Have you seen any argument for jury nullification when someone is charged with murder or robbery and the sentence is appropriate for the crime? If jury nullification were such a threat to a rights-respecting nation, I'm sure laws would have been passed against it. Yet, while the few times it has been asserted is certainly controversial, I know of no law in the country that prohibits it.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The curse of anarchy looms large in this issue of jury nullification, and concerned members should give careful consideration to the implications of supporting such an act.

Respectfully, the implication here is that if a member comes to a different conclusion (than your own), they are either not concerned, or not careful in their considerations, or both. Is that what you meant to communicate?

No.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Considering that its history goes back ...

I am not arguing history. I am presenting what is right.

[Paul's Here 0]

And one more point about jury nullification. As rare as it is, it is even more rare (if ever) that an entire jury will find in favor of the defendent. The typical case, in the examples that I've read about, involve one or a few jurors refusing to find the defendent guilty. This results in a hung jury, which means that the prosecutor is free to retry the case if he wants to.

[Paul's Here 0]

I am not arguing history. I am presenting what is right.

Neither was I. I was providing context and information. None of my questions have been answered in the last several posts, so I'm not sure how what you hold to be right addresses what I hold to be right.

[Paul's Here 0]

If you think so, you missed a part of what Miss Rand wrote. Go back and read the sections after Roark's trial speech.

I don't seen any discussion of Roark's trial after the "not guilty" verdict is issued. The chapter ends 3 sentences after that.

Unless you're referring to

The picture remained in their minds through the long legal discussions that followed. They heard the judge state to the prosecutor that the defendant had, in effect, changed his plea: he had admitted his act, but had not pleaded guilty of the crime; an issue of temporary legal insanity was raised; it was up to the jury to decide whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of his act, or, if he did, whether he knew that the act was wrong. The prosecutor raised no objection; there was an odd silence in the room; he felt certain that he had won his case already. He made his closing address. No one remembered what he said. The judge gave his instructions to the jury. The jury rose and left the courtroom.

As far as I interpret that, Roark was charged with blowing up a building, Roark admitted to the bombing, the jury knew that Roark blew up the building, the prosecutor was certain he had won, and the jury decided that Roark was moral and found him not guilty.

What am I missing?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I am not arguing history. I am presenting what is right.

Neither was I. I was providing context and information. None of my questions have been answered in the last several posts, so I'm not sure how what you hold to be right addresses what I hold to be right.

Paul, I do not always have the time to answer all the questions that are posed. There seem to be a number of supporters of jury nullification here, each with differing versions. I tried to address the issue in a wholesale manner, simply by presenting the ideas which I think are right, rather than refuting each and every variation.

However, since you have been so prolific in this thread, select out the single most important question that you think I have not addressed, and if possible I will respond. Please make the question as succinct as you reasonably can.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

I hold that the higher principle of upholding law as such (so long as a nation is mostly free) trumps the occasional case in which someone is convicted of an act that should not be a crime.

I believe that one of the founding principles of a rational judicial system is that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than incarcerate 1 non-guilty man. I don't want to live in a society where the irrational decisions of politicians and/or judges can not be overridden by a rational jury.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Unless you're referring to

The picture remained in their minds through the long legal discussions that followed. They heard the judge state to the prosecutor that the defendant had, in effect, changed his plea: he had admitted his act, but had not pleaded guilty of the crime; an issue of temporary legal insanity was raised; it was up to the jury to decide whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of his act, or, if he did, whether he knew that the act was wrong. The prosecutor raised no objection; there was an odd silence in the room; he felt certain that he had won his case already. He made his closing address. No one remembered what he said. The judge gave his instructions to the jury. The jury rose and left the courtroom.

As far as I interpret that, Roark was charged with blowing up a building, Roark admitted to the bombing, the jury knew that Roark blew up the building, the prosecutor was certain he had won, and the jury decided that Roark was moral and found him not guilty.

What am I missing?

Note the "an issue of temporary legal insanity was raised" along with "it was up to the jury to decide ... whether he knew that the act was wrong." Roark's entire speech was a testament to the fact that he knew his act was right, not that "he knew that the act was wrong." The jury realized that. They did not nullify the law; they acted in accord with the instructions.

[Paul's Here 0]

Neither was I. I was providing context and information. None of my questions have been answered in the last several posts, so I'm not sure how what you hold to be right addresses what I hold to be right.

Paul, I do not always have the time to answer all the questions that are posed. There seem to be a number of supporters of jury nullification here, each with differing versions. I tried to address the issue in a wholesale manner, simply by presenting the ideas which I think are right, rather than refuting each and every variation.

However, since you have been so prolific in this thread, select out the single most important question that you think I have not addressed, and if possible I will respond. Please make the question as succinct as you reasonably can.

This was an issue that I had thought about alot a many years ago and it's been a long time since I've reconsidered it. So I was recalling many ideas from my previous thinking. I'm aware that anarchists, such as Rothbard and Spooner, avidly supported jury nullification as a way of invalidating laws. I totally disagreed with their views.

In my view, jury nullification is a way of letting the legal system (the legislature and the judiciary) know that they've made a mistake by passing a particular law. That the particular law is immoral and cannot be used to put moral people in jail. In my view, jury nullification is applicable to laws that are non-objective, such as anti-trust, cigarettes laws, sentences that are disproporationate to the crime, prosecutors pursuing cases for political reasons, etc. It must be remembered that that jury system is part of the judiciary, and just as a judge can rule a law unconsitutional or overturn a verdict from another court, a jury can and should be able to do exactly the same thing. You don't need a jury to determine if someone commited a crime and should be put behind bars: witnesses and a judge can do that. A jury is needed to make sure that the law is applied correctly and morally in the case where a defendent is on trial. A trial is where the legal rubber meets the road, which is the back of the defendent - his life. It is not a beaurocratic procedure held safely in the halls of someone's debating room. It is not some congressman selling votes for pork. In other words, the jury is the final check on reality in a legal sense.

How does this lead to anarchy?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Neither was I. I was providing context and information. None of my questions have been answered in the last several posts, so I'm not sure how what you hold to be right addresses what I hold to be right.

Paul, I do not always have the time to answer all the questions that are posed. There seem to be a number of supporters of jury nullification here, each with differing versions. I tried to address the issue in a wholesale manner, simply by presenting the ideas which I think are right, rather than refuting each and every variation.

However, since you have been so prolific in this thread, select out the single most important question that you think I have not addressed, and if possible I will respond. Please make the question as succinct as you reasonably can.

This was an issue that I had thought about alot a many years ago and it's been a long time since I've reconsidered it. So I was recalling many ideas from my previous thinking. I'm aware that anarchists, such as Rothbard and Spooner, avidly supported jury nullification as a way of invalidating laws. I totally disagreed with their views.

In my view, jury nullification is a way of letting the legal system (the legislature and the judiciary) know that they've made a mistake by passing a particular law. That the particular law is immoral and cannot be used to put moral people in jail. In my view, jury nullification is applicable to laws that are non-objective, such as anti-trust, cigarettes laws, sentences that are disproporationate to the crime, prosecutors pursuing cases for political reasons, etc. It must be remembered that that jury system is part of the judiciary, and just as a judge can rule a law unconsitutional or overturn a verdict from another court, a jury can and should be able to do exactly the same thing. You don't need a jury to determine if someone commited a crime and should be put behind bars: witnesses and a judge can do that. A jury is needed to make sure that the law is applied correctly and morally in the case where a defendent is on trial. A trial is where the legal rubber meets the road, which is the back of the defendent - his life. It is not a beaurocratic procedure held safely in the halls of someone's debating room. It is not some congressman selling votes for pork. In other words, the jury is the final check on reality in a legal sense.

Hmm. I think we have different views of what "succinct" means.

How does this lead to anarchy?

It's not that jury nullification leads to anarchy, it is an act of anarchy. I explained why in this post.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

It's not that jury nullification leads to anarchy, it is an act of anarchy. I explained why in this post.

It appears that this is a point that will remain one of disagreement. I have addressed several of the issues you raised in that post in several of my following posts. I will just say that I don't hold that jury nullification is an act of anarchy. Jury nullification is recognized within the law as being within the prerogative of the jury. It is a method that jurors can use to objectively apply moral principles to non-objective laws when the setting involves an individual's life during a trial.

[Ed from OC 0]

It's not that jury nullification leads to anarchy, it is an act of anarchy. I explained why in this post.

Precisely. There's no legal check on the power of jury nullification, nor objective means of review. There is no means of enforcing the use of it only in cases of nonobjective law. It ends up relying on the whims of 12 anonymous citizens to decide which laws we must follow. Despite its faults, I'll stick with the current legal systems.

And that's pretty much all I care to add to this discussion. The topic just has very little interest to me.