You must log in or # to comment.
Every time jury nullification is used for based reasons, we get a little bit closer to people casting aside civility politics and understanding how power really operates. Uncritical support to the actionists, and those jurors will sleep well knowing they allowed heroes to go free.
Is this why pal action people keep getting off? Do they have jury nullification in Britain?
They do, similar to the US it’s not really a specific feature and more a natural consequence of having a jury decide and not punishing jurors for the decisions they make
How would you even punish jurors for that? Someone else (the judge I guess) would have to decide that their decision was “wrong”, and at that point why even have jurors?
As long as the juror doesn’t mention they are doing nullification they can get away with it. They just have to play dumb and keep repeating truisms over and over about how they aren’t convinced by the evidence
For a much longer time period it was actually because the state was just releasing members. They did not want to prosecute and open up weapons companies to the “discovery” phase of court trials.
They have a stronger version than the US because lawyers can argue for it to the jury. In the US they aren’t allowed to do it, and most states have model jury instructions that tell them they are not allowed to ignore the law because they think it unjust.
Not only can the defense not mention it, nobody can. It will get you thrown off the jury instantly and the entire thing declared a mistrial, redone without you.
There was one guy who kept protesting outside courthouses to tell jurors about jury nullification and he had been harassed and arrested dozens of times.
Why the fuck does the judge have to pre approve what kind of defense you’re going to use? They absolutely should’ve been able to claim the responsibility to save lives.
Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie something something
It’s the judges job to review the arguments for congruence with law. In a contrived example, if you go to court for a speeding ticket and argue ignorance of the speed limit, the judge’s job is stop that shit from consuming court time because it’s not the job of the jury to determine whether ignorance is a valid defense. By the rules, it isn’t.
Leading to a hung jury
Damn right
wild that the judge let them try to nullify the jury themselves
slight quibble: they advocated for the jury to nullify the law, not to nullify the jury (but you are right that it is shocking the judge let them do this)
