I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
One of the OJ jurors said that one of the reasons they voted not-guilty was because of 'payback' for Rodney King.
And so a murderer went free.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
So this guy just murders an innocent person.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor, because he knew the hospital would ask questions, and needed a scapegoat.
But the guy already walked free on the charges of murder. You can get him for molesting his daughter, but he literally murdered an innocent person and in your righteous zeal to disregard any evidence, you let him walk.
That example right there is exactly why we have a justice system that is supposed to involve impartial jurors.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
Guess what idiots: OJ walked on murder charges even though he was literally driving around in a blood-soaked car because the jury nullified his conviction simply on the basis of "boo hoo that cop said a racist thing" and "the blacks are going to chimp out if we don't let him walk".
And so a murderer went free.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
So this guy just murders an innocent person.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor, because he knew the hospital would ask questions, and needed a scapegoat.
But the guy already walked free on the charges of murder. You can get him for molesting his daughter, but he literally murdered an innocent person and in your righteous zeal to disregard any evidence, you let him walk.
That example right there is exactly why we have a justice system that is supposed to involve impartial jurors.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
Guess what idiots: OJ walked on murder charges even though he was literally driving around in a blood-soaked car because the jury nullified his conviction simply on the basis of "boo hoo that cop said a racist thing" and "the blacks are going to chimp out if we don't let him walk".
And so a murderer went free.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
So this guy just murders an innocent person solely on the word of a 6 year old.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor.
But the guy already walked free on the charges of murder. You can get him for molesting his daughter, but he literally murdered an innocent person and in your righteous zeal to disregard any evidence, you let him walk.
That example right there is exactly why we have a justice system that is supposed to involve impartial jurors.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
Guess what idiots: OJ walked on murder charges even though he was literally driving around in a blood-soaked car because the jury nullified his conviction simply on the basis of "boo hoo that cop said a racist thing" and "the blacks are going to chimp out if we don't let him walk".
And so a murderer went free.
Consider the slim chance that the guy actually didn't molest her.
Consider that maybe the girl was coerced to lie somehow, or was confused and misidentified someone.
Consider that maybe the guy was so fucking infuriated that a manlet with a gun showed up and accused him of being a pedophile that he angrily tried to just antagonize him (obviously a stupid thing, but there's a lot of videos of people with guns pointed at them doing equally stupid things).
So this guy just murders an innocent person solely on the word of a 6 year old.
And then maybe you nullify the conviction, and then a few weeks later, the kid shows up to the hospital again, and this time she admits her dad did it to her, and told her to lie and blame the neighbor.
But the guy already walked free on the charges of murder. You can get him for molesting his daughter, but he literally murdered an innocent person and in your righteous zeal to disregard any evidence, you let him walk.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - legal scholars who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
Guess what idiots: OJ walked on murder charges even though he was literally driving around in a blood-soaked car because the jury nullified his conviction simply on the basis of "boo hoo that cop said a racist thing" and "the blacks are going to chimp out if we don't let him walk".
And so a murderer went free.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
You will probably find incredibly few - if any - actual lawyers who will defend jury nullification. It's only ever brought up in cases where people want their 'ideal' outcome, which is to say "the justice system shouldn't operate when I don't want it to". Nobody ever gives thought to the fact that favorability of nullification basically means "the only laws that exist are the laws twelve unelected people decide exist".
Juries intentionally throwing out bad verdicts because of their personal feelings is some liberal-grade faggotry. If you were totally innocent of a gun charge, it would also be along the same lines of "nullification" if the jury was a bunch of gun-hating pricks who just wanted to stick it to a gun owner. You want that? I don't.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.