Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Role of Juries

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Role of Juries

    While the specific context is marijuana, I'd prefer to see a more philosophical discussion over the role of juries. Should they act strictly in accordance with the law or should they provide a check/balance against lawmakers who aren't legislating according to the wishes of the people?

    No Potted History of the Role of Juries

    Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:

    Reporting on the increasing number of jurors who refuse to return guilty verdicts against defendants charged with possessing marijuana, you quote a government prosecutor who tells jurors “We’re not here to debate the laws. We’re here to decide whether or not somebody broke the law” (“Juries are giving pot defendants a pass,” Dec. 25).

    This prosecutor is mistaken to assume that the law is simply that which the state declares it to be. A great advantage of trial by jury – an advantage applauded by the likes of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – is to enable the community’s evolved sense of law and justice to moderate, or even to nullify, government’s criminal statutes. As Edward Gibbon observed, “Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind.”

    Fortunately, more and more people understand that punishing a peaceful person simply for smoking pot is horrible.

    Sincerely,
    Donald J. Boudreaux
    3
    Strict interpretation of the law
    100.00%
    3
    "Jury" activism to provide a check/balance to lawmakers
    0.00%
    0
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    Jury nullification produces such bufoonery as "The Juice" (O.J. Simpson) running loose. But at the same time, if there is a law such as a mandatory 2 year prison sentence for possession of a doobie, I can't say I wouldn't also cut someone loose. It's a tricky situation, but I'm generally a law & Order person. There are means to change laws outside of a jury setting.

    Juries have also sometimes turned civil cases into circus shows, with ridiculous awards for pain & suffering, all out of bounds with any reality. The world laughs when some guy gets 25 million because of a lost pinkie finger or broken hip in a fall.

    I guess I'd have to say I'd be a fan of professional jurors, if there is appropriate training and oversight.

    Comment


    • #3
      Gotta be strict interpretation.

      -dale

      Comment


      • #4
        What would a liability lawsuit, found by the jury, in favor of the plaintiff but give an award of one dollar instead of millions asked for be?

        For guilty or innocence it has to be by the books, strict interpretation. If the legislators are not doing their jobs the people can always put in initiatives for other voters to vote on. My philosophy is that if you don't like the law then repeal/change it. If you just flout the law be prepared to pay the consequences when you get caught. If the laws bothers you and you can not get your peers to see you point of view and have it changed then it is time to find another place to live.
        Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

        Comment

        Working...
        X