Here’s a ~30 year old excellent law article on jury nullification by James Joseph Duane, who is also somewhat well known for his excellent “Don’t talk to police” lecture on YouTube. Click through the SSL warning in that first site to get the pdf - I think that’s better than the JSTOR library-login-wall link but you can see it there too.
It’s a pretty comprehensive positive treatment on jury nullification, with a bunch of history and context, well worth your time.
Thanks!
CGP Grey’s video offers both explanation and examples, and helps explain why Americans mostly don't know about the topic. i.e. it was used by people in the North to protect slaves running away, but also by people in the South doing lynch mob activities - either way, it reflects a breakdown of all of society and complete and utter lack of trust in the governing bodies, and a lifting up of personal preferences above the needs of society, to the point of even lying to a judge to accomplish the end goal.
i.e., totally setting aside right vs. wrong, there is a process by which things are most helpful to happen - e.g. voting, and in this case a trial by jury - and this topic completely bypasses that process. In short, it claims that the end justifies the means.
And that is a very dangerous topic indeed. As with the mod on LW, who gets to decide those ends - the Christian God? And who speaks in His place then, you?
Thanks!
The thing about jury nullification is that it isn't a checkbox.
For example you could argue that the OJ Simpson murder trial was a case of jury nullification. It probably wasn't, the jury just came to a conclusion many people disagree with. In fact OJ was found guilty in the civil trial. Was it truly just the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "a preponderance of evidence"? Or was it jury nullification? Or were the jury idiots? (In which case?)
Rodney King was beaten by police officers but ultimately acquitted, was that jury nullification?
Kyle Rotten shot people but was ultimately acquitted, was that jury nullification?
Additionally, the same law that allows for jury nullification also allows for the opposite situation. Someone who definitely didn't commit the crime still being convicted.
I'm sure there are plenty of cases where an "unfair" verdict is rendered. Proving actual jury nullification is difficult, unless jurors actively speak out about it, which even then can be risky.
Thanks
Reminder that the Nazi cop that found the most damning evidence in the OJ trial was literally a Nazi cop.
I'd have acquited on the basis of reasonable doubt as well.
The example that comes to mind for me, an Australian, is the Camden 28. They were a group of anti Vietnam war protestors who were acquitted after the jury gave not-guilty verdicts despite clear evidence against them.
Another example is William Lynch who beat a Jesuit priest who sexually assaulted him as a child and was found not guilty by the jury despite admitting guilt
Thanks for sharing!
I just read the sidebar and noted that you would prefer political discussions to happen on !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
But under the new LW ToS, jury nullification of future crimes cannot be discussed there. Could we maybe relax that rule?
It's up to jgrim and lazyguru, I don't want to cause them any problems. Though this topic is arguably not "political" (at least in the sense of one side vs. another), just an extremely controversial one, and we also need to be careful bc of the slippery slope: like even if parts of it were considered okay, where is the line between that and when it all of a sudden is not? Lemmy.World was helpful in being very clear where that line should be.
If the admins want to lock this, I will absolutely support that call. Especially with the USA becoming more fascist in a few months time - we need to preserve this space to discuss things in more than we need to have a single discussion about any one topic in particular.
Edit: oh and I just re-read the part about "future crimes" - that seems very likely to get us in trouble, so I would say no, not at all in relation to future crimes. It's one thing to discuss a topic in theory, and quite another to bring federal attention down upon us to scrutinize everything happening here.
Lemmy.World was helpful in being very clear where that line should be.
Indeed. I had a look at DO's rules, they link to the the Lemmy Code of Conduct, which doesn't explicitly address this topic
Edit: oh and I just re-read the part about “future crimes” - that seems very likely to get us in trouble, so I would say no, not at all in relation to future crimes. It’s one thing to discuss a topic in theory, and quite another to bring federal attention down upon us to scrutinize everything happening here.
But then couldn't this topic being discussed on LW as well now, even with the new ToS?
But then couldn’t this topic being discussed on LW as well now, even with the new ToS?
Exactly my point - they aren't forbidding all discussion on the topic? Well, tbf at the very beginning they did panic, then they took 3 days to clarify the ToS, but now such discussion is entirely allowed. Just not outright actual illegal stuff, like that guy wanting to sabotage their physical machines to bring them down - that stuff ofc remains illegal, and advocating for murder is illegal. If anyone wants to find a place to discuss illegal activities, it's not so much that it's impossible but it does sound like something better suited to an anarchist instance? Though it's not something that I'd want to be involved in.
AskUSA was an idea that predated all of this jury nullification controversy, where we wanted to make particularly Redditors feel more comfortable migrating over to Lemmy, despite all the objections like "it's run by tankies" and "it's more for an international audience than me inside the USA". For that purpose, it's progressing along nicely is it not?
Though a truly "free speech" instance like the Magats are asking for, essentially 4chan, isn't something that the vast majority of Fedizens want, and we would defederate any such server that was created.
In-between all of these extremes is ofc a vast middle ground, and yet police really do exist, so my guess is that any instance located within the USA would not be suitable for discussions of topics that come anywhere even remotely close to skirting the law here. But even if that were not true, I still personally would not want to be involved - especially as a moderator! There are too many nutjobs that would be attracted to such, it sounds like an enormous undertaking, plus a highly unpleasant one.
If anyone wants to find a place to discuss illegal activities, it’s not so much that it’s impossible but it does sound like something better suited to an anarchist instance?
Quoting myself from another comment
I just had a look at https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html to check
We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.
So if people say "CEOs of private healthcare companies who cause the deaths of thousands of citizens for profit should face the same fate as the United Healthcare CEO", is it acceptable or no? Real question, I don't think it's that clear from the rules.
Also, as those are the rules created by the Lemmy devs, I would really surprised if they prevented any action against CEOs
I'll help out by clarifying: regardless of whether Discuss.Online allows such, I don't want to be moderator of a community that would skirt the law so closely, so I don't want it here in !AskUSA@discuss.online, at least under my moderatorship.
-- the additional, irrelevant details --
I am actually getting quite nervous even meta-discussing this discussion of how people would discuss such matters. I am no lawyer, and I want to stay SO VERY FAR AWAY from the legal line that I don't have to worry about whether - oopsie daisy! - it has been crossed or not. I already have stress in my irl and this isn't helping! Our discussions of creating a place such as AskUSA predated all of this jury nullifcation topic, and I hoped merely to help provide a "welcoming" and "fun" and "safe" place for Americans to enjoy visiting - and I'm still offering to do all of that much - but the rest of this, is getting to be too much for me!? Sorry if I did not realize what you were ultimately pushing for - I'm not commenting on rightness vs. wrongness to want such here, just that I don't think I can help you with fulfilling that desire, which especially in the upcoming changing legal landscape within the USA, is more than a little on the extreme end of what might even be theoretically possible (and quite possibly is not, legally speaking, or else may become so very very soon).
Furthermore, if Discuss.Online was itself okay with it, and someone else wanted to moderate it, then I'm totally okay to hand over this exact community to whoever would step up for such? (in that case... please tell me what buttons to press? I am new to the mod tools here and I don't see that option, or maybe we'd need to get an admin involved? anyway I'm totally supportive of such if that's what people wanted, so I could initiate a request to them in such a case?) I have no desire to "squat" this community name and outright prevent discussions that people feel like should be here.
Though if we want to keep AskUSA as light-hearted and fun, and to put politicaldiscussions@whereverelse, then that works too (in that case I still hope that people would join this community to help moderate it).
I hope this helps paint a vision moving forward?
I hoped merely to help provide a “welcoming” and “fun” and “safe” place for Americans to enjoy visiting
As I said elsewhere, there's a reason Ask and Casual communities both exist.
A list of questions that could be asked on AskUSA but would still be completely legal
None of those questions would cross any rules, but they would make the community look serious and depressing, but also would allow people to talk about those serious matters.
From what you are saying, you should probably handle a more laid-back CasualUSA community, similar to !casualconversation@lemm.ee , !yurop@lemm.ee , !casualuk@feddit.uk
You can probably open a post to call moderators to take over AskUSA, and open CasualUSA in parallel
The odd part is that I am not subscribed to any such community myself - not even the various Shower Thoughts ones:-). Occasionally I will run into such a post on All or such, and if there is a need then I am willing to help with something but the communities I tend to frequent on my own initiative are like !Fediverse@lemmy.world, !fedimemes@feddit.uk, !tenforward@lemmy.world, and the Fediverse "drama" communities.
So, are you OK to open !casualUSA, and try to find some help for !askUSA? :-)
https://discuss.online/post/14195662
I'll wait to hear the answer before making casualUSA, in case nobody is willing to do the more serious one.
Thank you for the post!
Thank you for walking me through all of this. And now I see the appoint moderator button, on people's accounts, so I should be ready to implement it when it happens:-).
Nice!
Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Politics is inescapable, but please keep things that are overtly political to other communities such as: