• 2 Posts
  • 767 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 28th, 2023

help-circle

  • I guess this is the core of the issue.

    I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.

    Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.

    You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?



  • This is just more words saying the same thing - that jurors should just make up the law based on the vibe of the case. It’s absurd to me that so many people in these threads complain that the legal system is unfair, and in the next breath propose that citizens should be able to set aside the law in specific situations because of the feels.

    That is the antithesis of a fair and just system and honestly it’s exasperating rehashing the same concept over and over.

    The answer to why guilt is determined by a jury of your peers is that it avoids having a judiciary that can charge, convict, and sentence a defendant. That seems patently obvious to me.

    You need to be found guilty of the charges against you by a jury of your peers. The whole point is that the jury is not experienced in law, and interprets the facts and evidence as any reasonable third party would.

    Juries are not appropriately positioned to determine a sentence because they are not experienced and have no frame of reference.

    It’s telling that in these threads my comments are awash with downvotes but no one can provide an actual rebuttal.

    Basically, people just don’t want luigi to be punished for murdering a shitty CEO. Sadly, that doesn’t make jury nullification a legitimate course of action.









  • Well, to your first point, jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict. Obviously if they could the whole system breaks down. Jurors can exploit this protection to return a false verdict with impunity, but it is exactly that - false testament. Others will try to say that jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal system but IMO it’s just exploiting a limitation.

    Secondly, you’re not talking about an unfair law, you’re talking about an unjust outcome. All laws will produce unjust outcomes in some specific circumstances. However a law against murder reduces more harm than it causes, so it’s worth upholding.

    To me, the idea of having juries decide to set aside the law in cases they feel are unjust is an absurdity. Imagine if Trump were on trial and the jury unanimously returned not-guilty despite obvious guilt.