As per .world worldnews mod, no discussing naughty stuff like jury nullification.
While this post is blowing up, here’s the book referenced by the shooter:
Delay Deny Defend - Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It
By request: Full, uncensored video of the shooting. (Fucking obviously NSFW)
Nullification is your duty when the law is unjust. Also not illegal
In practice, sort of. It’s a symptom or side effect of two other really good ideas:
-
A jury cannot be in any way punished for any verdict they reach.
-
One cannot be tried for the same offense twice if it is acquitted. Technical term for this is “double jeopardy.” A guilty verdict can be appealed but a not guilty verdict is absolutely final.
The shapes of these two principles are such that they cannot interlock in any way that does not leave room for jury nullification.
And saying those words in jury duty will get you tossed immediately from selection lol
wtf
Jury nullification is legal.
You need to lie to the judge under oath to do it. There simply aren’t consequences, but it is very much illegal.
Wrong. They try to filter out people who know about jury nullification, but the act itself is not illegal, as you do not have to have the knowledge to accidentally do it anyway.
That seems pretty unfair to filter out people who know about it, it’s basically filtering knowledgeable people.
Just to be clear, one of the standard questions to ask a potential jury is “you must be able to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at the trial and in the context of the law as I will give it to you in my instructions, disregarding any other ideas, notions, or beliefs about the law. Are you able to do this?”
If you know about jury nullification, with the intent of using it, then you need to lie under oath to get past this question.
The question was taken from the New Mexico US courts
You do not have to lie to the judge. There is no lying to the judge. If the jury decides to ignore evidence and nullify, the judge knows exactly why, and there’s nothing they can do about it.
I was a juror in two different trials and don’t recall ever being asked about my beliefs on jury nullification. It’s been many years though.
Edit: it seems like I was wrong. Supposedly, jury nullification is not legal in my US state.
Edit 2: perhaps it’s still not completely settled in my state yet?
See links in top post. Jury nullification is legal, it is inherently part of how our justice system is structured. However, most judges and prosecutors would much rather prefer you didn’t know your rights, and have outright lied in court about it.
Why are people downvoting this? Jury nullification itself isn’t illegal, but committing perjury definitely is, which is what Maalus is pointing out
It’s a TOS violation to discuss one of the very real and legitimate responsibilities you have as a juror?
Like, nullification is a thing because it’s very much the absolute very very last defense against bullshit laws being used against people by a corrupt judicial system.
It’s a moral imperative and something anyone sitting on a jury should understand and be willing to use.
What an absurd take, especially since it sounds like it’s all the .world admins having it.
theres no faster way to get kicked out of the selection process than mentioning it.
if you want out of jury duty, mention jury nullification and you are out of there.
… and in jail for contempt of court.
If all one had to do was utter ‘JN’ to get out of JD for free nobody even slightly inconvenienced would ever serve.
In reality, they dance around the fact. Ask you questions designed to get you to admit you have no ‘valid’ reason to nullify if you did, at which point you are either guilty of lying under oath or contempt of court.
You have to be firm in your convictions and hold your ground with a valid justification if you are going to try using nullification awareness to weasel out of jury duty because the judge will press, and press until they either think you’re a true believer of a valid reason, or are just trying to shirk your duty.
Link me even one case of that happening.
If they think you even might support nullification, they don’t want you on the jury. They wouldn’t risk that you’re joking or trying to get out of serving.
It’s likely not actually a TOS violation, that person commenting is almost certainly talking out of their ass, likely to try and push their own agenda and make people comply.
I consider human life sacred
Like the lives of those cut short by denying treatment so CEOs and shareholders can make more money?
only God may judge us
Oh, fuck off. If God exists and actually cared, he/she/they would have “judged” the guy a long time ago for introducing needless suffering and cruelty.
god is the most cruel entity in the entirety of the bible. kills the most people, causes the most suffering. how anyone can read that book and come away with a positive view of that beast is unfathomable.
I agree, but that wasn’t quite the point I was trying to make.
The moderator was on a moral superiority high-horse by suggesting that “only God may judge” a guy who served as the judge for other’s lives through complacent inaction and encouraging policies that put personal gain over humanity.
The only way that argument wouldn’t have been hypocritical is if he agreed that God was a cruel bastard, and I don’t think that was the case.
If god is omnipotent, everything that happens is a result of his judgement.
Benevolent is very debatable gestures widely at genocide and children dying of cancer
It is impossible for a being to be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent given the amount of suffering in the world. They can only be two of the three at most:
Omnipotent + omniscient = Knows about evil, can stop it, but chooses not to.
Omnipotent + benevolent = Can do something about evil and wants to stop it, is too oblivious to on a large scale.
Omniscient + benevolent = Knows about evil and wants to stop it, is powerless to do anything significant about it.
Only God may judge us? Which God exactly, you giant fucking DIPSHIT?
