I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?

If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?

I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.

    Did you just make this part up because it sounds nice ?

      • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.

          • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?

            That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.

            This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I am able to support my claim, and I am doing so in our other conversation. The basis of my claim here relies on an understanding of the purpose and need for a layperson jury. My claim here arises naturally from that underlying point, which is better developed in our other thread.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              I wouldn’t say it that way, but I won’t say that is an inaccurate summarization.

              Our other conversation is a far more productive avenue of approach.