Borderline lifeboat situations

[Free Capitalist 0]

I'm doubt that the man sitting in jail for smoking a joint feels comforted by the fact that that the cornerstones are well shored up.

Well there's a wider issue than just the particular man concerned. That an injustice had been committed upon him is indubitable, and abhorrent, but at least he lives in a society ruled by law. Just like a man who has been convicted by the court for the crime he didn't commit should not rail at the justice system. Yes, he's been severely mistreated and it's not okay, but in a wider sense the goal of a proper society was accomplished, even if misguided in his concrete case. Order and justice are very much related, because order is the precondition for justice. That's why anarchism is actually all the way with totalitarian governments in the scale of freedom -- there is no order, and thus justice is fundamentally impossible. So a conviction of an innocent man is terrible, as is a conviction under a non-objective law, but as long as properly enacted laws are properly enforced, the system still works, so there's still a chance for a change in laws, for parole, appeal, etc etc. That is something of a fundamental importance -- that the very preconditions for civilized society are still enforced and defended. I hope you understand that I'm not excusing the unfair law, but that there still is a gem of something important to be salvaged from the situation. So if you arrest a guy for having a joint, he's surely being mistreated, but you're still protecting order and the preconditions for justice, something very important and going beyond just him, and we can work on amending those laws in the future (such as by participating here on THE FORUM, and through other means).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'm doubt that the man sitting in jail for smoking a joint feels comforted by the fact that that the cornerstones are well shored up.

Well there's a wider issue than just the particular man concerned. That an injustice had been committed upon him is indubitable, and abhorrent, but at least he lives in a society ruled by law.

Yes, and even if faulted, in a proper society those laws are established by objective means, as opposed to being determined by subjective means on an individual basis, which is anarchy. A friend recently pointed out to me that there was an interesting discussion on jury nullification a couple of years ago on HBL. I just took a look at a post by Peter Schwartz, who makes the same points that several of us have made here, and specifically cites the drug laws as example. Interestingly, Peter also identifies one class of law, antitrust law, as being indefinable, which fact implies that an Objectivist on a jury could argue for determination of fact such that Microsoft's browser was not in "restraint of trade." This is different from drug or tax laws, which, though wrong, are definable. I had not thought of this point before, and I agree with it.

[Dean M. Sandin 0]

A friend recently pointed out to me that there was an interesting discussion on jury nullification a couple of years ago on HBL. I just took a look at a post by Peter Schwartz, who makes the same points that several of us have made here, and specifically cites the drug laws as example. Interestingly, Peter also identifies one class of law, antitrust law, as being indefinable, which fact implies that an Objectivist on a jury could argue for determination of fact such that Microsoft's browser was not in "restraint of trade." This is different from drug or tax laws, which, though wrong, are definable. I had not thought of this point before, and I agree with it.

So do I. The jury's task is epistemological. "Not guilty" means not proved guilty. Certainly a crime that can't be objectively defined can't be proved to have been committed.

I'll have to go into my archives to check on the HBL post by Peter Schwartz. Thanks for the tip.

[RationalBiker 0]

I hope you understand that I'm not excusing the unfair law,

No, I certainly had no such concern in that regards. I think we all want the same end, a just society. We just have some disagreement on the one of the processes that could be useful in getting us there.

I have nothing really to add at this point without belaboring the points I've already raised.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'll have to go into my archives to check on the HBL post by Peter Schwartz.

I found about two-dozen related posts (search on "nullification" in subject), all within several months during 2004. Peter's two posts were particularly astute, as was several comments by Harry. Glancing through the two-dozen posts, I would say most all agreed with the position we have presented here, especially with the anarchistic nature of jury nullification. There were a few dissenters.

Thanks for the tip.

Thank my friend (next time you see him ).

[Paul's Here 0]

--------

Yes, and even if faulted, in a proper society those laws are established by objective means, as opposed to being determined by subjective means on an individual basis, which is anarchy. A friend recently pointed out to me that there was an interesting discussion on jury nullification a couple of years ago on HBL. I just took a look at a post by Peter Schwartz, who makes the same points that several of us have made here, and specifically cites the drug laws as example. Interestingly, Peter also identifies one class of law, antitrust law, as being indefinable, which fact implies that an Objectivist on a jury could argue for determination of fact such that Microsoft's browser was not in "restraint of trade." This is different from drug or tax laws, which, though wrong, are definable. I had not thought of this point before, and I agree with it.

So your point being that if the perpetrator of the law understands the law and knows the consequences of his actions, then it's ok for a jury to convict him. But if the law does not clearly define that specific actions a person is taking constitute a crime, then the jury can say "he couldn't have know it was illegal, so we shouldn't convict him." Is that what you mean?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

So your point being that if the perpetrator of the law understands the law and knows the consequences of his actions, then it's ok for a jury to convict him. But if the law does not clearly define that specific actions a person is taking constitute a crime, then the jury can say "he couldn't have know it was illegal, so we shouldn't convict him." Is that what you mean?

No, that was not the point. If the law is indefinable, such as the "restraint of trade" under antitrust law, then as a member of the jury in the Microsoft case you can argue that Microsoft's browser in fact does not restrain trade. That is contrasted with drug laws which, though wrong, are clearly definable.

[Paul's Here 0]

No, that was not the point. If the law is indefinable, such as the "restraint of trade" under antitrust law, then as a member of the jury in the Microsoft case you can argue that Microsoft's browser in fact does not restrain trade. That is contrasted with drug laws which, though wrong, are clearly definable.

I'm not sure how that relates to jury nullification. Assuming that the "you" in your statement above refers to a juror, how could a jury argue that a product 'restrains trade' when there is no way to interpret the concept objectively. Without an entire economic theory to understand the term and provide context, I don't understand how such fact can be argued. If anything, any product restrains trade because I no longer have the money I've traded for it to buy other products.

Anyway, if a jury cannot argue that a law does not apply to the facts presented, then expecting a jury to define an indefinable term seems equally subjective (or acting on whim). The reason the term is not defined is because it is not objective: it has no relation to reality or to man's means of knowledge.

There is one question that I really would like answered, if anyone can address this. What is the objective reason that a jury is needed to determine the facts and the guilt or innocence of an accused, keeping in my mind other possibilities?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

No, that was not the point. If the law is indefinable, such as the "restraint of trade" under antitrust law, then as a member of the jury in the Microsoft case you can argue that Microsoft's browser in fact does not restrain trade. That is contrasted with drug laws which, though wrong, are clearly definable.

I'm not sure how that relates to jury nullification.

It is not directly related, but I thought it an interesting point.

[AdamM 0]

I wanted to respond to the idea that jury nullification is inherently anarchistic. I disagree with this position, and posit a similar question to one previously asked by Paul's Here: Let's say that a man was on trial for procuring marijuana for his wife, who had a condition which could be best treated with it. Unfortunately, laws in this country do not leave it to doctors to evaluate the benefits of marijuana, and instead allow politicians to decide the merits behind medical science. Let's say the normal sentence for such a crime was 10 or 20 years as it was during the Nixon administration. Would an honest man convict such a person on the basis of the rule of law, or would he hang the jury for such vicious injustice? I submit that an honest man should never damn another (or take twenty years of his life) because of a virtuous action. What good is the rule of law if the law is used to imprison the virtuous members of society? Another good example is the Fugitive Slave Act. For what would someone uphold such a law, requiring slaves to remain so? Such a law is inconscionable, and therefore I will go even further. I think it would be moral to lie to the prosecutor, telling him that you were not against the law, so that you could see to it that moral people are not locked away. Just this question was asked earlier in the thread, and my response is: If you see moral men being squashed under the heavy boot of tyranny, it is your moral right to save such a person, even if it means lying to the prosecution (whose attempt is to continue and prop up the tyranny).

It does introduce a person's own judgment into the situation -- but isn't that the point of the jury system? Isn't it the theory that a jury of peers will not convict an innocent man? And what difference does it make whether the honest man is innocent and within the law, or innocent while disobeying it? I think it would be a real shame to take us -- the men of the mind -- out of the courtroom and let people's fates be decided by dishonest politicians with corrupt philosophies.

[AdamM 0]

Also, may I suggest that this thread be split off, since the latter half has been about jury nullification, not lifeboat situations? Thanks!