ithriosa t1_isdjxby wrote
Reply to comment by Taysir385 in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b
>No, it wasn't fine, but that's also not an argument in any way against it existing no.
It is a pretty good argument against it. If a law is bad, then believing that a juror going rouge is not a proper or reliable remedy. That introduces huge amounts of bias which always puts vulnerable groups in danger. Many white individuals have achieved nullification that their black peers rarely would.
Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.
Purposefully introducing additional bias into the system is a bad thing for any fair application of justice.
And it allows death penalty laws to survive longer than they should since a majority believe that it can only be applied to the dreaded "other people" due to nullification.
Taysir385 t1_isdki3e wrote
> Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.
I agree that no one should 'rely' upon jury nullification, and we should also work wherever possible to strike unjust laws from the record.
But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.
ithriosa t1_isdliny wrote
>But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.
It is. Nullification is a bad thing for the US justice system and one reason why there are so many discrepancies between how different groups are sentenced. It introduces very significant bias which ripples across the other stages as well.
For instance it is harder to sentence a young handsome white Christian for rape or drug possession. This creates disparities in sentencing which are shielded from standard political review because the disparity of the overly harsh large are only felt by the vulnerable minorites. These groups do not have the voting power to reverse such laws.
If sentencing was more standard in the US, then many of the draconian laws would have been lightened or repealed a long time ago.
Taysir385 t1_isdnjqh wrote
So your argument is that we shouldn't allow a jury to have this power because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.
I'm happy to grant that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world, and I'll trust twelve random people (or even twelve semi random people) with the pursuit of true justice far more than I'll trust any police officer or prosecutor. And as long as that's the case, jury nullification is fundamentally necessary, even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.
ithriosa t1_isdrezo wrote
>that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world
That is the opposite of what I am arguing. I am arguing that in a perfect ideal world nullification would be fine. However we don't live in such a world
>because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.
No. I am saying that practices such as nullification is a source of the lack of integrity. That it weakens the integrity
>even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.
Even if it exaggerates and magnifies those biases?
Here is a serious question: would you be in favor of a law that said simply "white people are immune from the death penalty"?
You could argue that in a perfect world, such a rule would apply to all people, but in this imperfect world this is better than nothing.This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?
Taysir385 t1_isdv4a1 wrote
> .This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?
It's clearly a rhetorical question, because there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.
It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out. Be well, friend.
ithriosa t1_isewjt2 wrote
>It's clearly a rhetorical question,
It is not rhetorical. I was honestly not sure how you would answer. And I am surprised by your answer.
>there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.
Sure no "just world" however we do not live in a perfectly just world.
Why is it absurd? By your prior logic it should be better than nothing. If you see the death penalty as an unjust law for which a juror should be able to prevent someone from facing for ANY reason, then what do you think is wrong with this? This offers an additional reason for which a person can avoid this unjust law
It seems fairly consistent with your prior reasoning.
>It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out.
It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.
Taysir385 t1_isft63s wrote
> It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.
No friend, I left when you tried to change the discussion from general examination of jury nullification to specific arguments about unconscious racial bias and whether or not I support the death penalty.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments