Unpopular Opinion: Jury Duty can be used to take a stand for Free Speech.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by CCitizen, Aug 2, 2020.

  1. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay, this is getting tedious. Go to the post that defines nullification. It most certainly is a verdict. You are aware that verdict and outcome mean the same thing here? The only outcome that isn't a verdict is a hung jury.


    Lol. It's not french fries, its julienne potatoes. Please.



    There are millions of people who can serve on a jury without bias against or for the defendant. Your arguments are ridiculous.

    Which one are you? No, really. Which one?

    Jury nullification (US), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.[8]

    (You might want to tell the Brits that it's perverse outcome, not verdict.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
  2. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would challenge you to find a single case where the words "jury nullification" was written down as the verdict. You won't find one. Because there are only two verdicts in a case. Guilty or Not Guilty.

    The two can be intertwined.
     
  3. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jury nullification (US), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.[8]



    Nobody is talking about intertwining anything. You can intertwine a million things if you want. Doesn't matter. We're talking about bias; straight up, hateful bias. I don't know what OP you read, but it's not the same one I did.

    Regardless, nullification necessitates a not guilty verdict. The OP suggests convicting an innocent man. A conviction is not a nullification. The two are diametrically opposed.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  4. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll see your position and raise it...

    Jury nullification should be utilized in any trial were this is no identifiable victim.
     
  5. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good luck with that. If you got 11 people already convinced of someone's innocence, it's doubtful that you'll get far. And if you can't back up your reasoning, you will be outed as biased or unable to follow the court's directions. You'll likely be removed.

    If you're lucky enough to be on a jury where the evidence isn't clear, you'll have a shot at convincing others (If you're good enough. Are you smarter than 11 others?) , or you could hang the jury.

    A hung jury usually results in a mistrial. The defendant may be dismissed or the judge can order a new trial. What would be the purpose of causing a mistrial? Seems counterproductive to me. There's a good chance the DA won't seek to prosecute further, and even so, an innocent man will get a new trial and be found not guilty. This does not seem like a wise idea.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  6. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I must be misreading this entire post. I just must be.
    This isn't even about jury nullification. Its about the rules of evidence. Evidence is not permitted on issues that are deemed irrelevant or immaterial to prove the elements of the CRIME. The jury will not be informed of any of the above.

    If I am charged with stealing a Black 1989 Accord from my Cousin on June 7 2002, just how do you expect a judge to allow the prosecutor to be probing witnesses about whether I was a Democrat or a Republican or an 'enemy of humankind' in June of 2002?

    Trials are not there to support your personal agenda or punish people who's ideology or beliefs you don't like . They exist to discover if a specific criminal or civil statute was breached and by whom.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  7. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's because it's not a prosecutable offense. What gave you the idea it was?
     
  8. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By convicting an innocent man? Really?
     
  9. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, thanks, I think. I don't even get that out of it. Very bizarre OP.

    It begins with a hypothetical criminal case involving an innocent SJW. The OP suggests we can stand up for freedom of speech by attempting to convict this innocent defendant. Okay, yeah, you're right. Rules of evidence. If the defense has exculpatory evidence, it cannot be ignored. You can't just say the witnesses are liars and the video is fake. Ain't gonna work. Anyway, then the OP takes a sudden turn into nullification, which is specifically a not guilty verdict, sometimes for hideous reasons. Convicting someone does not nullify any law. Suggesting a guilty verdict can be a result of jury nullification is radically nonsensical.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why only on that issue. Why wouldn't your idea apply to anything an individual juror might have a personal opinion on? Political party membership, religious beliefs, opinion on abortion, career choice, having tattoos, nationality, the car they drive, skin colour... the list is literally endless.

    The fundamental problem is that if even a relatively small number of jurors actually chose this option, it would completely discredit the criminal justice system, preventing guilty people from being convicted and innocent people acquitted based on irrelevant assumptions or opinions of the juries. Even if there were any positives to what you suggest (which I strongly doubt), what are you willing to sacrifice to achieve it?
     
  11. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree.

    I see it as the final check of the people on the law, except that second check ;)

    If the government oversteps its bounds the people can always legally deny prosecution.

    It reduces the need for violent resolution of greivances. I agree it is a double edged sword, but hey - a double edge sword is still pretty cool; Sauron had a double edged sword and he seemed to do alright until they locked his eye in that tower.

    Part of the right to trial by jury is the right to go free if the state can't convince 12 random people from the area of the crime of your guilt.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jury nullification, on a case by case basis, is the conscience of the community in action, from trials for witches to trials under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

    Jurists from John Jay to Samuel Chase to Oliver Wendell Holmes are on record about it from the earlies days of the Republic.

    Harlan Stone of SCOTUS in 1941 noted "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

    Since 1895 and the Sparf decision, modern jurists have tried to suppress knowledge of jury nullification.
     
    CCitizen and Kal'Stang like this.
  13. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So sending a man to prison for a crime he did not commit is a stand for freedom in your eyes. You have to be a POE account.
     
  14. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you say its a verdict you're referring to what I underlined there. Just after that is where it says "UK". IE: That is what its called in the UK. The US however it is different. You will not find a single case in the US that lists "jury nullification" as a verdict. Because in the US jury nullification is not a verdict. It can be what caused a verdict. But it is not in itself a verdict.

    The OP is talking about lawsuits. A lawsuit is not about crime. Its about wrongdoing where the law does not apply. As such you're not judging the law. You're judging the actions/non-actions of a defendant. Since Jury Nullification is about voting your conscience I'd say that it applies just as equally to a lawsuit as it does to a criminal trial. Perhaps more so than a criminal trial even.

    And yes, a conviction is also a nullification. Its a nullification of the wrong a person did.
     
  15. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People don't get sent to prison for lawsuits. They generally have to pay the plaintiff some sort of restitution.
     
  16. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The OP isn't talking about a criminal trial. He's talking about lawsuits.
     
  17. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rules of evidence still apply in either civil or criminal court.
    Evidence is relevant if:
    (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
    (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

    None of what is in the OP with regard to free speech views, or party affiliation or ideological perspective makes it more or less probable that I punched you first in a brawl, or I wired your furnace backwards, or I used the wrong blade in your nose job.

    Its not getting into testimony any more than your dating history will.
     
  18. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You want the gov't involved in the hiring practices of businesses beyond the discriminatory practices that protected classes are today.
    You want to add political leaning to the list of protected class?
     
  19. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evidence in a civil court are pretty simple. Did X do Y? Yes or no? If yes then does X deserve Z? Yes or no?

    The fact that an employer fired W for their political view is easy enough to determine. Especially since in many areas its not illegal to fire someone for such. In fact that is a part of cancel culture, to get someone fired because of their political view. And since its not illegal many employers won't deny it.

    "Yes, I fired W because they posted something negative about LGBQT+ on Facebook and I believe it reflects poorly on our company even though W was not wearing any identifying marks of our company W was still identified as working for us."

    Not the first time I've seen something like the above there. Or something to that effect anyways. If a person sued on such in a civil case its quite possible that I'd be for voting in favor of the employee.

    Why? Because Free Speech is about more than just "Speech that the government may not censor". Free Speech is about protecting speech that is not acceptable. Whether I agree with what was said or not is to me irrelevant. People should be able to say what they want without it ruining their entire lives.
     
  20. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, if you're going to have politically protected classes then why not protect political speech also? Its already protected to a degree by not allowing the government to suppress it via the 1st Amendment. Why not take it all the way? If its important enough to prevent the government from interfering with it via the 1st Amendment, surely its important enough to protect it all the way?
     
    CCitizen likes this.
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, I thought the RW side of politics didn't like the protected class thing.
    But they would like to add to it?

    So, is it good for gov't to protect certain classes of citizens?
    Is the RW side of people against big gov't interference or not?
     
  22. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, its a good thing I'm not RW huh? ;)

    But it is true that I don't care for AA laws. But that is because it is not applied the way its supposed to be applied and because of that ends being discriminatory itself (for instance requiring Asians to have higher SAT scores than any other race to get into college of their choice is discriminatory but in the name of AA laws its not against AA laws...somehow). Especially when people abuse it.

    But that aside I don't think this would be something that many RW folks would be against because it would be expanding Rights and is not something that could actually be abused. At least not in anyway that I can think of. It doesn't put one group above another or below another. In fact it would even give many companies an out when they're being protested, which means that they wouldn't have to discriminate against a group which means more money for them because everyone would know that they can't stop political speech. In the end most companies just want to sell as much as they possibly can. Right now they do that by catering to X social group that appears to be in the majority. With such a law they could service everyone and not piss anyone off. If someone did say something they would just have to point and say "sorry, but we can't do anything because it is against the law if we were to do something".
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
  23. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Political leaning except for hate speech -- already the case in several states.
     
  24. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing as hate speech.
     
    CCitizen likes this.
  25. CCitizen

    CCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,875
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you. Hopefully, Conservatives can massively get behind the idea of making political leaning a protected class. Perhaps some exceptions like Hate Speech can apply. Already the case in some jurisdictions.
     
    Kal'Stang likes this.

Share This Page