Jury Nullification

[imbecile]

How about we add a third (or forth in scotland) jury verdict - "not guilty by way of nullification"? Mags could be allowed to use this too.

It would introduce common sense and send out a powerful message that the law is there to serve the people, not the people to serve the law.

[Jasandjules]

The jury are there to decide on the facts, the Judge is there to decide upon the law.

[fluffnik]

Jasandjules said:

The jury are there to decide on the facts, the Judge is there to decide upon the law.

The jury is free to decide the verdict.

[imbecile]

fluffnik said:

Jasandjules said:

The jury are there to decide on the facts, the Judge is there to decide upon the law.

The jury is free to decide the verdict.

Indeed. In fact, see the history of the "not proven" verdict under Scots law.

[fluffnik]

imbecile said:

fluffnik said:

Jasandjules said:

The jury are there to decide on the facts, the Judge is there to decide upon the law.

The jury is free to decide the verdict.

Indeed. In fact, see the history of the "not proven" verdict under Scots law.

It's "not guilty" that's the product of Jury Nullification though; the original verdicts were Proven and Not Proven.

[Jasandjules]

imbecile said:

fluffnik said:

Jasandjules said:

The jury are there to decide on the facts, the Judge is there to decide upon the law.

The jury is free to decide the verdict.

Indeed. In fact, see the history of the "not proven" verdict under Scots law.

Which is different to English Law.

The judge can and does direct the jury to convict, based on the law.

The question is what do you mean by Nullification? It means Invalidate? So therefore what would the Jury Invalidate?

[Zumbruk]

Jasandjules said:

imbecile said:

fluffnik said:

Jasandjules said:

The jury are there to decide on the facts, the Judge is there to decide upon the law.

The jury is free to decide the verdict.

Indeed. In fact, see the history of the "not proven" verdict under Scots law.

Which is different to English Law.

The judge can and does direct the jury to convict, based on the law.

And can be quite legally ignored. See the Clive Ponting case discussed in the Wikipedia article below.

Jasandjules said:

The question is what do you mean by Nullification? It means Invalidate? So therefore what would the Jury Invalidate?

"Jury nullification" is the name commonly given to the right of juries to acquit on the basis that they disagree with the law. The judiciary hate it, and they try and deny its existence, but it exists nonetheless. In the US knowing about it, or admitting membership of the Fully Informed Juror Association is about the quickest way to get excused from a jury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[Jasandjules]

Having gone to my decent books, it seems that R v Wang (House of Lords) does allow a jury to acquit if they wish.

Live and Learn.

[skwdenyer]

Jasandjules said:

Having gone to my decent books, it seems that R v Wang (House of Lords) does allow a jury to acquit if they wish.

Live and Learn.

In the absence of a written (and hard-to-alter) constitution, however, this means little any more - the Government have simply allowed Double Jeopardy . Roll on the revolution.

[Flat in Fifth]

Sorry I'm puzzled by this thread.

Are you simply saying that juries should be made more aware they can return a perverse verdict?

A perverse verdict has always been possible and in fact does happen from time to time, eg anti GM camapigners eho admitted damaging GM maize were aquiteed by a jury in face of the evidence.

[s2art]

Flat in Fifth said:

Sorry I'm puzzled by this thread.

Are you simply saying that juries should be made more aware they can return a perverse verdict?

A perverse verdict has always been possible and in fact does happen from time to time, eg anti GM camapigners eho admitted damaging GM maize were aquiteed by a jury in face of the evidence.

Perverse to who though? A jury refusing to find guilty is the best way we have of telling the politicians that a law is wrong.

[Jasandjules]

skwdenyer said:

Jasandjules said:

Having gone to my decent books, it seems that R v Wang (House of Lords) does allow a jury to acquit if they wish.

Live and Learn.

In the absence of a written (and hard-to-alter) constitution, however, this means little any more - the Government have simply allowed Double Jeopardy . Roll on the revolution.

Well, in some respects I actually prefer that idea. It may even attract a greater amount of publicity and thus have more of an impact upon getting the "stupid" law changed (which the jury felt was stupid/perverse).

It may even mean the second jury would follow the same reasoning....

[skwdenyer]

Jasandjules said:

skwdenyer said:

Jasandjules said:

Having gone to my decent books, it seems that R v Wang (House of Lords) does allow a jury to acquit if they wish.

Live and Learn.

In the absence of a written (and hard-to-alter) constitution, however, this means little any more - the Government have simply allowed Double Jeopardy . Roll on the revolution.

Well, in some respects I actually prefer that idea. It may even attract a greater amount of publicity and thus have more of an impact upon getting the "stupid" law changed (which the jury felt was stupid/perverse).

It may even mean the second jury would follow the same reasoning....

Well in the sense that the jury might be encouraged to believe "it doesn't matter if we do make a statement, s/he can always be tried again" that might encourage juries to be bolder with their nullification efforts, which can only be a good thing.

BTW Wang is an interesting precedent which is, in part, contradicted by R v Caley-Knowles and R v Jones (considered together, Court of Appeal). The Wang decision said "there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty". However Caley-Knowles/Jones says that just because a judge has directed a guilty verdict doesn't automatically render a conviction unsafe. The paradox is that you could argue in court that Wang was pre-eminent, the Judge could demur and direct in any case, only for your appeal to be thrown out on the grounds of Caley-Knowles/Jones! In that regard, to a Judge determined to direct at all costs, Wang ceases to have the teeth it (briefly) once did.

[Flat in Fifth]

s2art said:

Flat in Fifth said:

Sorry I'm puzzled by this thread.

Are you simply saying that juries should be made more aware they can return a perverse verdict?

A perverse verdict has always been possible and in fact does happen from time to time, eg anti GM camapigners eho admitted damaging GM maize were aquiteed by a jury in face of the evidence.

Perverse to who though? A jury refusing to find guilty is the best way we have of telling the politicians that a law is wrong.

Perverse verdict as in the accepted definition:- i.e. contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law