I would ask any potential juror if he believed in "nullification" and if he said yes I would have him removed for cause.
Once again it is a bunch of nut jobs imagining in their lunacy they are striking a blow for justice, in reality they are agents of chaos and if their ideas spread we will be irreparably harmed. They should be kept off juries and is they conceal their belief in nullification to get on they should be punished.
May each nullifier be tried for their life, liberty and property by a nullifier who believes he knows better than everyone else.
Let’s say there was a law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that said a person could be acquitted of a criminal charge yet sentenced, using a lower standard of evidence, as if he was convicted of that charge. Do you think that violates the Constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy?
And a judge is lying to the ury when he tells them that the Judge decides what the law is and the jury is required to apply the facts to the judges instructionsas to the law.
The US Supreme court has ruled that the jury is judge of both the facts and the law.
Here’s something everyone, on both sides of the jury nullification argument, needs to keep in mind: the most prominant recent example of jury nullification is the acquittal of OJ Simpson.
Jury nullification has a long history in the US, a once accepted practicr that fell out of favor in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. But given the growth of things like identify politics at the price of logic and reason, it’s pretty damn dangerous. It’s probably better to replace “loony supporters for these times” with “supporters for these loony times”
Laws are the product of legislators not some nut's private belief of what is just or unjust.Dude (or dudess as the case may be). Really. I know a libtard who works for an NPR radio station on a college campus (we don't get to choose family or I wouldn't know it) and you sound...
...
rendering himself a liar.
...
a bunch of nut jobs
...
agents of chaos and if their ideas spread we will be irreparably harmed
...
they should be punished.
...
May each nullifier be tried for their life, liberty and property
...
Just
like
her.
Have a nice day.
Jury nullification has been an acknowledged fact of American jurisprudence since at least 1735 with the trial of Peter Wenger. In fact, early in our history judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. You’re just flat-out wrong.
Of course, WE do not have autocrats presuming to tell the jury they MUST convict.
If the jury does not say that it is nullifying the law, but finds the defendant not guilty, there is no recourse. If the jury can be punished, it is no longer a jury.
There is also the consideration of selective prosecution. If everyone knows something is technically against the law, but everyone does it and no one is prosecuted until the prosecutor decides to go after you, you might think differently about jury nullification.
Spoken like a graduate of some B$ law school. Your attitude is the mother's milk of revolution.