OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a “subscribers only” blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
Jury nullification doesn’t really exist. It’s just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about “jury nullification” is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.
Is it true there only needs to be one holdout in the 12 to grind it to a halt?
They can order a new trial with a hung jury.
Yes
It depends on the charge. Some only need a majority, some need a unanimous vote.
It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:
- Double Jeopardy means your cannot try someone twice for the same crime
- A juror cannot be held accountable for a decision they make
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it’s a feature or a bug.
If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.
You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.
Aren’t jury trials statistically more likely to result in a false coviction than other trials? Given how much presentation, charisma, gender and race can influence a verdict its already about how much the jury like the defendant.
Not really. I mean sure some jurors may not like a defendant because of their race, but the court process seeks to mitigate these issues. For example there are 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is required. The hope being that the majority of jurors will be able to convince a few racist ones to set aside their prejudism.
This isn’t really a reason to just throw out the whole process and make trials popularity contests.
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
It is fixed, albeit imperfectly.
Jurors are instructed to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.
To return a verdict of “not guilty” despite knowing that the defendant is guilty, merely because jurors know they can not be prosecuted is still corruption.
Surely the judge still has a role, and that is to determine the punishment if found guilty.
… but in this case everyone is advocating jury nullification so as to avoid punishment, so you don’t really need a judge to determine punishment.
The judge’s other main role in a trial with jury is to actually run the proceedings of the trial. Order of operations, keeping the two counsels in line, scheduling, etc.
Judges = letter of the law
Jurors = spirit of the law
Jurors have no idea what “the law” actually is.
When you say “spirit of the law” really what you mean is “the vibe”.
By that logic, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat?
The problem with your logic is that you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice. If they truly don’t, then forget the judiciary as a problem, because the society itself isn’t going to hold up. So in that way, applying your logic here and under that assumption you are right, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat when people no longer care about acting in good will?
Sentenced to one night of rehabilitation?
you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice
I’m not assuming that at all. Jurors have a very specific role, which is to determine whether the evidence against a defendant is sufficient to find them guilty of the charges against them. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.
“Juries are required to perform determinations based on a system of ethically based laws and justice. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.”
Try again.
That’s not what I said at all.
I can’t be any clearer. Jurors consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with.
They do not “perform determinations” in any way. They do not consider ethics. They do not dispense justice.
I can’t be clearer either. The jury needs to have a sense of what they are participating in it, and “consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with” is just another way of saying they have to determine something but disingenuously acting like it’s completely different. Grammar Nazis, people who will argue to oblivion about something, MAGAists, they all have one thing in common, they focus and overextend very limited but convenient interpretations in order to build walls around a context that suits them.
Technically, you’re correct. In this particular case though, I don’t think it’s the best kind of correct.
Juries are the triers of fact when present. In a civil case, that means the judge can ask all kinds of nuanced questions in the jury instructions, as that could be necessary for the judge’s application of the law later down the line.
In the US criminal justice system, the laws are meant to be interpretable by the common person (a lot of work being done by “meant-to-be”). A judge only asks them a single question: For the charge X, how do you find? Since juries do not need to justify their decision, they can use whatever reasoning they want to behind closed doors to reach their decision: facts, ethics, or flipping a coin. The lawyers use voir-dire to try to exclude jurors that would be too biased, or would be willing to use a coin flip (juries almost universally take their job seriously—they hold the freedom of someone in their hands.)
As mentioned elsewhere, an acquittal by a jury in the US is non-reviewable. It doesn’t matter why they acquit. Convictions, OTOH, are reviewable, and judges have famously thrown out guilty verdicts from juries before.
It’s not a question of can, but ought.
Ought a jury just make up the law based on the vibe of the case?
How would you feel if it were Trump on trial for whatever crime and the Jury just decided that although the evidence says he’s guilty as sin it just didn’t feel right to convict such an important person.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Only when it comes to acquittals though, which aren’t appealable. Those decisions can and will be reversed in civil cases or if people convict inappropriately. You mentioned as much by noting double Jeopardy but I still think it’s an important distinction that makes it irregular.
Really hope this is fully televised.
Nah, the topic of the month is going to be Trump declaring war on Mongolia because UFOs and Jewish Space Lasers.
Can’t have the plebs talking about real issues.
Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.
It’s literally the reason to have juries. It’s the last line of defense against unjust laws.
Thank you, Based Mod. Not every day, we see one.
deleted by creator
Based
https://lemmy.world/comment/14404101
A very important explanation
All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.
I hope he’ll be judged as innocent. He seems a nice guy.
I know it’s in NYC, but I live in New York State and really hope I get a summons.
My unpopular opinion on this is that the jury should find him guilty, if there is sufficient evidence.
Luigi may not deserve to be punished, but a justice system where juries just make up the law based on the vibe of the case sounds much worse than whatever we have now.
I do believe that there is a time to kill, but one would do so willing to bear the consequences.
Why have juries at all then?
Because they prevent corrupt judges pronouncing innocent defendants guilty.
https://youtu.be/B-2qrFlwYlY?si=yTE7sODiDNtA9IzG
If you can’t put together why I am linking you a 50 year old workers conflict in response to your comment, well I don’t want to even talk to someone that can’t understand common sense.
Sorry mate I’m not going to watch an hour and a half long video so I can understand your common sense.
Piss off with that noise.
A good point well made.
Yeah, because cops never lie or plant evidence. Surely we can make such decisions based solely on what they’ve publicly said. /s
The whole point of a defense attorney and jury is to determine the strength of the evidence.
If a jury feels that evidence is insufficient, that’s “reasonable doubt” and they can simply return a verdict of not guilty. You don’t need jury nullification for that.
A part of me is with you. The end goal is equally applied rule of law, so it’s important to respect the system when you’re trying to improve it, right?
However, I think you could argue that the jury and its power to nullify is very much an intended check within the system. It’s kind of an ideal situation where “the people” get to bookend the legal process. They vote for the people making the laws, and they have the final OK before somebody gets sent to prison.
But that is all assuming people perceive the system as working for them to a reasonable degree. If it’s simply broken then why would people go along with the BS while hoping and voting for a better system? They can still vote for a better system while reducing harm in other ways.
There’s also the pragmatic side of me that wants to see good results for humanity (which includes our environment) regardless of the text of the local laws. And yeah, it’s very much a two-edged sword when random citizens do what they think is “right.” Bad examples of it are everywhere. But taking things case by case, what Luigi did was akin to shooting a serial killer between their murder stops. And more importantly, it shines a giant public light on the fact that real people suffer and die so that other people who are already set for life will make $10 million next year instead of only $9 million.
The jury’s power to nullify is not an intended check.
If the jury is intended to weild this power then you don’t need a judge at all. Jury’s can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case.
Honestly, I’m amazed Luigi hasn’t had an “accident” in jail
Nah, that would make a martyr. If anything he’s the safest guy in the place.
Not sure if you refer to this accident, but Jeffrey knew too much and was a risk. Luigi is not a risk anymore, his followers are. And they would probably be fueled by his death.
Yeah; he’s already become evangelised to an absolutely insane degree globally that the ruling class didn’t see coming, making any rash moves, especially any that would martydom him, would backfire.
Saint Mangione! The patron saint of medical benefits.
Y’all screaming legal terms like it makes any difference. Luigi is going to jail for the rest of his life like the rest of the incel terrorists.
incel terrorist
Pretty sure he impregnated the whole damn country when his pics were posted.
Just like the Boston bomber guy and the rolling Stones cover.
Hmm, maybe convict him, but give him no penalty and no imprisonment?
That’s a thing, right?
We the jury find the defendant GUILTY! We sentance him to a fine of $1 and a lifetime membership to United Healthcare!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
With all claims pre-approved and irrevocable.* Because you know these fuckers will try a fast one.
lifetime membership to United Healthcare!
So, the death penalty?
Pardon?
**Hmm, maybe convict him, but give him no penalty and no imprisonment?
That’s a thing, right?**
Idk, but I hope so!
That’s was probably a dad joke. And maybe you missed it on purpose but will point it out anyway.
Is if you’re Trump
Yeah, I think that happened to some really important guy a few days back.
I think the judge decides the penalty after the jury decides on guilt.
I believe the jury decides guilt or innocence, but the judge determines the sentence… In most cases
Yep that’s how that works
It depends on the state. Some states have a full second trial with a new jury in order to determine the sentencing.
Sometimes it’s just a tacked on part of the original verdict.
And the rest of the time it’s just the Judge who can do almost anything provided the sentence stays within certain parameters.
Only if you’re rich
Repost of my own comment in a different community:
I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place.
It’s also because jurors are asked to judge the probability of something happening, not just whether it happened, so it’s not something that you can leave to professionals because judging motive etc requires a representative sample of the population and not some remote legal class of citizens.
Also a guard against corruption. It’s much harder to keep bribing random jurors than getting and keeping “Jurors” that you can control. See the US Supreme Court as a cautionary tale.
Why the hell is CNN charging a subscription now? Are people really stupid enough to pay it?
Press the button that makes all that stuff go away so you can just read the article…
do you prefer ads?
Yes, because they can be blocked.
Keeping in mind that I am not debating the merits of CNN specifically — unfortunately in a reality where there are no subscription or similar means to pay for professional journalism, and everyone is blocking ads, these services die. Both the ones you approve of, and the ones you don’t.
Which then results in sites charging money for subscriptions…
I prefer quality journalism, not paying for the shit CNN generally churns out. Are you really suggesting it’s worth paying for CNN? We’re not exactly talking about Deutsche Welle here in terms of journalistic integrity and serious reporting just because they have the occasional decent article.
I think it’s a reasonable response to the ‘why the hell they’re charging a subscription now’ part of your question. Probably not a question you actually wanted an answer to, but regardless of opinions about the quality of their journalism I think it’s important that publishers are investigating alternate ways to monetize their work — publishers want to rely on ads for revenue about as much as readers want to see them. A fragmented subscription model across the whole industry being the right answer seems doubtful, but at least it gives them a revenue stream which doesn’t come with advertiser strings attached. And who knows, maybe it will positively change the content they put out if they garner enough subscribers with high enough expectations to pay.
CNN still has ads.
Works fine on my machine
Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.
“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”
Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.
Giggity.
Jury nullification is also why cops who murder people and klansmen get acquitted. It’s not necessarily a good thing, just a quirk of the system.
It’s not some minor quirk of the system. It’s the only reason we have juries at all. If you just wanted a group of 12 people to decide guilt and innocence based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, you would never hire 12 random untrained nobodies for that purpose. If that is all juries were for, you would have professional juries; being a juror would be a career that required a law degree.
We have juries to protect against corrupt laws. That is the only saving grace of having guilt and innocence be decided by 12 random untrained nobodies. Legislatures can become corrupted and end up criminalizing things that the vast majority of the population does not consider to be wrong. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense against corrupt laws. And this mechanism is the only reason we have juries like we do.
No, juries are the triers of fact. Juries do not exist to make a determination as to whether the law is fair or not and are (usually) explicitly told this. They have to listen to the facts, decide what actually happened, and then whether the facts match the elements of whatever crime is being charged.
I agree that getting a jury of twelve randomish peers is actually not the greatest system, but it’s what we’re working with. So in this paradigm, jury nullification is a huge problem because it’s twelve random people just deciding not to enforce a law the rest of society (sort of) has said needs to be enforced. This in turn leads to white supremacists getting acquitted by juries after prosecutors proved beyond a doubt that the defendants committed the crime and the same happening with police that abuse their powers.
It could end up working to protect civil liberties. But the reality is it mostly results in the status quo being upheld and/or actual criminals that need some kind of punishment being acquitted.
This is a self-serving lie promulgated by legislators and jurists who loathe a check on their own power.
Form follows function. The jury nullification “loophole” has been known for centuries. Entire constitutions have been written knowing full well that they will enable jury nullification. There are ways you could design a legal system that wouldn’t allow nullification. Yet time and time again, the people have chosen not to reform the system to eliminate jury nullification.
Yes, giving juries power to judge the law often produces negative outcomes. But that’s simply democracy. Sometimes democracies produce bad outcomes, just like any system of government.
Oh it’s definitely a good thing. But sometimes people are bigots. Fortunately most people dont want to let Klansman get aquited.
As much as most people on the left want juries to nullify in cases of unfair or unjust laws, the reality is it mostly results in murderous cops going free and corporations getting free passes. Like I said in another comment, while jury nullification could be used to tackle unfair laws, the reality is you mostly end up with actual racists and actively harmful corporations not being held accountable. Jury nullification is itself not good or bad, but it’s mostly used for bad. Frankly, I don’t really love the jury system but that’s a while bigger issue.
Most people wouldn’t support a muderois cop. The reason cops go free is because most of them never see a jury trial. They dont even get indicted.
the whole point of a jury is to allow the people to decide the law on individual cases. There are many problems with juries, but complaining about jury nullification just means you don’t like the good parts of having a jury.
There are good parts and bad parts to it. Historically, it was used for good in the form of letting slaves go free. It was also historically used to let lynch mobs go free, which is horrifying.
It’s not 100% good, nor is it 100% bad.
It’s just another part of democracy. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”
Any form of government can produce positive and negative outcomes. Even absolute monarchy had its moments. Once in a very blue moon, you would actually get a “good” king or tyrant, one that really did try to use his power and influence for the greater good. But through trial and error we learned that, on average, democratic systems produce far better outcomes than monarchical or dictatorial ones. No system of government has entirely positive outcomes; they just vary in their ratio of positive to negative.
Agreed, 100%. Democratic juries are absolutely better.
I was mostly addressing this part:
complaining about jury nullification just means you don’t like the good parts of having a jury.
There are some valid cases to complain about it. But the majority of the time, it’s a good thing.
The jury nullification toolkit:
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
Please see rule 4 and update your post title
Fixed, looks like they changed it on me
It happens, no worries. That’s why I usually comment instead of delete with Rule 4
Appreciate it. I swear most news sites will change a title 3, 4 times after publication these days. Must have some shit to do with SEO or something.
Sounds to me like either:
- Rule 4 should be rescinded
- The link should always be to a timestamped archived version so that the title remains consistent
- A bot should be created that verifies that the title was accurate at the time of posting
- Some kind of Lemmy functionality should be created that automatically polls and updates the post title when the article title changes.
Rule 4 definitely shouldn’t be rescinded, there would be way too much editorializing of titles to fit the posters narrative (because let’s be real, >50% of users don’t open the article, at least not at first). It definitely needs to stay in a true news community.
A timestamped archive version would be nice but you then end up taking away direct traffic from legitimate websites- the same problem as the AMP link I unfortunately had to use above. No traffic, no survival. (Granted I will happily post an archive link when content is paywalled; but most other sites do still need that traffic.)
your options 3 and 4 could work fine- 3 just seems like spam and you’ll get people hating it like the MBFC bot, and 4 already partially exists- in the form of the link tagline that appears under the post when you actually open it. Warning users about noncompliance and letting them decide if they care enough to change it or not is probably fine enough for now.
I just feel like forcing people to babysit their posts when it isn’t their fault that the news outlet changed the title out from under them might discourage posting.
The preceding discourse was civilized and adult, and I am a better person for having witnessed it. Well done all.
Ehh, I can definitely see it being discouraging to some, but most people who post in the first place tend to be active enough to respond to a gentle reminder mod ping like Jeff did above. I find that very reasonable. Editing only takes a few seconds.
Lots of sites will do A/B testing with their headlines/thumbnails. Some users will see version A, some will see version B. After X amount of time, whichever version saw the most traffic becomes the “final” version which all users will see. I imagine this was a similar situation.
