Jury nullification and Luigi Mangione’s murder defense | CNN
amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org
  • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
    2·
    6 hours ago

    No, juries are the triers of fact. Juries do not exist to make a determination as to whether the law is fair or not and are (usually) explicitly told this. They have to listen to the facts, decide what actually happened, and then whether the facts match the elements of whatever crime is being charged.

    I agree that getting a jury of twelve randomish peers is actually not the greatest system, but it’s what we’re working with. So in this paradigm, jury nullification is a huge problem because it’s twelve random people just deciding not to enforce a law the rest of society (sort of) has said needs to be enforced. This in turn leads to white supremacists getting acquitted by juries after prosecutors proved beyond a doubt that the defendants committed the crime and the same happening with police that abuse their powers.

    It could end up working to protect civil liberties. But the reality is it mostly results in the status quo being upheld and/or actual criminals that need some kind of punishment being acquitted.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      21·
      3 hours ago

      This is a self-serving lie promulgated by legislators and jurists who loathe a check on their own power.

      Form follows function. The jury nullification “loophole” has been known for centuries. Entire constitutions have been written knowing full well that they will enable jury nullification. There are ways you could design a legal system that wouldn’t allow nullification. Yet time and time again, the people have chosen not to reform the system to eliminate jury nullification.

      Yes, giving juries power to judge the law often produces negative outcomes. But that’s simply democracy. Sometimes democracies produce bad outcomes, just like any system of government.