In Kim Stanley Robinson's futuristic novel THE MINISTRY FOR THE FUTURE, after a massive heat wave kills thousands in India, a vigilante group forms to seek retribution against those who foul the air with carbon --- they shoot down airplanes (thereby ending air travel) and they hunt even the richest of individuals in castle-like houses with individually targeting drones --- Suddenly, the rich and powerful who gave us global warming are ALL in danger --- this vigilante may be the first example of life imitating art. I'd hate to be on the first plane that gets blown out of the sky.
What is interesting is that most people in favor of abortion rights were critical of Alto in using out of date ruling from the 15 and 16 centuries when he made his ruling.
Either way, just because they were used in the past does not mean they should be used today.
Either way, jury nullification is not legal. No state permits jury nullification.
Furthermore, jury nullification is always 100 percent wrong. It is 12 people ignoring the law and the evidence in letting a criminal go free. In this case, a jury will be allowing a person to get away with cold blooded murder (and despite the euphonism you used in article, the person who did this is a cold blooded murder) just because you do not like him.
If people are serious about jury nullification, this would be an out for every crime. People who murder abortion doctors can say they were protecting the unborn. Jury nullification will permit open season for abortion doctors. The protesters stopped me from going to work or to get my kids. That means I can run over the protesters. Jury nullification will allow that person can go free. Jury nullification allowed racist jury to allow white defendants to commit crimes on Afro-Americans with impunity.
Jury nullification will not only allow the radical left to commit violence with impunity (the murders, robberies, and bombing that happened in Europe and US during the 1960 for example) it will allow groups, like fascist, to get away with the same thing.
You are wrong about jury nullifiction bein illegal. Jurors do not need to vote a certain way based upon the instruction a judge gives them, for example to ignore certain evidence or testimony they've heard. They don't have to explain their reason for votinvb not guilty. If they all decided a prosecution is wrong and a crime waas done for a moral purpose, they can do that with impunity and the innocent finding cannot be appealed. That is what happened for example in the Camden 28 case with which I am familiar. It also happened in the bank frraud case brought by Manhattan DA Cyrus vance against a small Chinese family owned bank called Abacus and its chief loan officers. the Jury found not guilty on 150 charges of mortgage fraud, and the DA was defeated. The key is for nullification to work there has to be a unanimous findinf of innocence so the Judge cannot declare a hung jury, allowing a new trial. That's a high bar, so the thing you worry about -- killers getting of for the wrong reason,-- would be rare indeed.
If a jury on a whim can choose to ignore the law and evidence and find anyone innocent, then the jury system is broken.
This BTW, does not mean that jury nullification is legal. It just means that the system has no way to punish a jury who ignores the evidence and the law.
And I will repeat, jury nullification is always wrong. Period. A jury should NEVER ignore the evidence or the law. If the state can prove their case, the defendant is guilty period.
Again I disagree. The jury is the most powerfuldirect tool of the common people to correct the oppressive laws and enforcemment efforts of the state. If you think that American justice is basically fairto the common people, rregardless of their station in society, if you think that the laws passed by legislatures and congress and the regulations established by government agencies are in the interests primarily of the common people, then maybe you'd have a point, but when you've seen as much injustice as I"ve seen as a journalist for more than half a century, you'd understand why I would far rather put my trust in a jury of 12 citizens chosen after being quewtioned by two attorneys or defense teams, and I believe that they should have the ultimate power to decide cases according to their own judgement.. With guidance from a supposedly impartial judge (which is often not the case, especially when one party in a case is the state or a powerful corporation) of course, but with the ultimate decision being what each juror decides based on how each one judges and weighs the evidence her or himself. That ultimately is what jury nullification makes possible.
Actually, no jury nullification is ignoring the evidence and the law. It is a powerful way from criminal to go free and unpunished. Remember, jury nullification will happen not just on cases where you agree with them. The vast majority of the time, it will result in cold blooded criminals to go free. Like in this case, if the cold blooded killed of the CEO of an insurance company goes free even though the prosecutor proves their case, we need to overall the jury system.
Jury nullification must never be allowed to happen. Period.
Since most of America lives in fear of getting sick and not being covered and/or denied coverage and going bankrupt ; it soothes my Soul to now know that the Wall St, Healthcare and Corp sr mangt are now experiencing fear
In Kim Stanley Robinson's futuristic novel THE MINISTRY FOR THE FUTURE, after a massive heat wave kills thousands in India, a vigilante group forms to seek retribution against those who foul the air with carbon --- they shoot down airplanes (thereby ending air travel) and they hunt even the richest of individuals in castle-like houses with individually targeting drones --- Suddenly, the rich and powerful who gave us global warming are ALL in danger --- this vigilante may be the first example of life imitating art. I'd hate to be on the first plane that gets blown out of the sky.
'One wonders whether it might, with good lawyering by the defense, end up with a jury nullification.
considers that jury nullification is 100 percent wrong and totally illegal, this should not happen. Period.
It can and it should. It is a concept from British Common Law on which Law is founded. Just Look at Alito's opinion overturning Roev Wade.. He was citing rulings by 15th and 16th century judges in witch trials. Here's a link to the legal concept: https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminal-justice-process/trial-process/jury-nullification-in-criminal-trials/. It should be taught in civics classes, if schools start requiring those someday again.
What is interesting is that most people in favor of abortion rights were critical of Alto in using out of date ruling from the 15 and 16 centuries when he made his ruling.
Either way, just because they were used in the past does not mean they should be used today.
Either way, jury nullification is not legal. No state permits jury nullification.
Furthermore, jury nullification is always 100 percent wrong. It is 12 people ignoring the law and the evidence in letting a criminal go free. In this case, a jury will be allowing a person to get away with cold blooded murder (and despite the euphonism you used in article, the person who did this is a cold blooded murder) just because you do not like him.
If people are serious about jury nullification, this would be an out for every crime. People who murder abortion doctors can say they were protecting the unborn. Jury nullification will permit open season for abortion doctors. The protesters stopped me from going to work or to get my kids. That means I can run over the protesters. Jury nullification will allow that person can go free. Jury nullification allowed racist jury to allow white defendants to commit crimes on Afro-Americans with impunity.
Jury nullification will not only allow the radical left to commit violence with impunity (the murders, robberies, and bombing that happened in Europe and US during the 1960 for example) it will allow groups, like fascist, to get away with the same thing.
You are wrong about jury nullifiction bein illegal. Jurors do not need to vote a certain way based upon the instruction a judge gives them, for example to ignore certain evidence or testimony they've heard. They don't have to explain their reason for votinvb not guilty. If they all decided a prosecution is wrong and a crime waas done for a moral purpose, they can do that with impunity and the innocent finding cannot be appealed. That is what happened for example in the Camden 28 case with which I am familiar. It also happened in the bank frraud case brought by Manhattan DA Cyrus vance against a small Chinese family owned bank called Abacus and its chief loan officers. the Jury found not guilty on 150 charges of mortgage fraud, and the DA was defeated. The key is for nullification to work there has to be a unanimous findinf of innocence so the Judge cannot declare a hung jury, allowing a new trial. That's a high bar, so the thing you worry about -- killers getting of for the wrong reason,-- would be rare indeed.
Then we need to change our jury system.
If a jury on a whim can choose to ignore the law and evidence and find anyone innocent, then the jury system is broken.
This BTW, does not mean that jury nullification is legal. It just means that the system has no way to punish a jury who ignores the evidence and the law.
And I will repeat, jury nullification is always wrong. Period. A jury should NEVER ignore the evidence or the law. If the state can prove their case, the defendant is guilty period.
Again I disagree. The jury is the most powerfuldirect tool of the common people to correct the oppressive laws and enforcemment efforts of the state. If you think that American justice is basically fairto the common people, rregardless of their station in society, if you think that the laws passed by legislatures and congress and the regulations established by government agencies are in the interests primarily of the common people, then maybe you'd have a point, but when you've seen as much injustice as I"ve seen as a journalist for more than half a century, you'd understand why I would far rather put my trust in a jury of 12 citizens chosen after being quewtioned by two attorneys or defense teams, and I believe that they should have the ultimate power to decide cases according to their own judgement.. With guidance from a supposedly impartial judge (which is often not the case, especially when one party in a case is the state or a powerful corporation) of course, but with the ultimate decision being what each juror decides based on how each one judges and weighs the evidence her or himself. That ultimately is what jury nullification makes possible.
Actually, no jury nullification is ignoring the evidence and the law. It is a powerful way from criminal to go free and unpunished. Remember, jury nullification will happen not just on cases where you agree with them. The vast majority of the time, it will result in cold blooded criminals to go free. Like in this case, if the cold blooded killed of the CEO of an insurance company goes free even though the prosecutor proves their case, we need to overall the jury system.
Jury nullification must never be allowed to happen. Period.
Since most of America lives in fear of getting sick and not being covered and/or denied coverage and going bankrupt ; it soothes my Soul to now know that the Wall St, Healthcare and Corp sr mangt are now experiencing fear