Jury Duty: Moral Quandry

[JLTucker]

In all seriousness, you did the right thing. I'm glad you weren't the only one who thinks the law is bogus in this regard. Maybe prosecutors will notice this if it becomes a trend.

Would that really make a difference? I am not familiar with the american justice system but I would expect that it is the duty of everyone involved be that the judge, jury, prosecutors or others to enforce the law to their best of their ability regardless of their personal opinions on the subject.

I was thinking more in terms of legislation being proposed if enough people think that such crimes are crippling the justice system.

[Broomstick]

See this short bit on jury nullification in the US for some background, you really don't need to go past "nullification in practice" unless you want to do so.

While it is not encouraged, juries DO have the power to find a guilty party not guilty regardless of the facts. If it happens often enough in regards to a particular law it's essentially the community negating that law. I do think it's debatable whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but either way it's part of the US judicial system.

If enough prospective jurors say "I think this law is stupid and I won't convict under it" that courts have a very difficult time getting enough people to form a jury, or juries are consistently not convicting in cases involving a certain law, it could lead to the law being overturned in law as well as de facto. There have been instances of charges being dropped because the government simply couldn't seat a jury that would convict (see linked article for examples).

There IS some room for leniency and extenuating circumstances in the judicial system - we mostly hear about the cases where it seems to be applied inappropriately but one reason mandatory sentences were enacted for a lot of drug laws is because all those pesky judges and juries were going "soft" on drug crime and, according to some, not taking it seriously enough. Remember that the words "judge" and "judgement" are related to each other, if it was merely a matter mechanically looking up penalties we wouldn't need human judges. It's why determining guilt or innocence and the "sentencing phase" of trials are separate - first you determine guilt, then you determine appropriate punishment. It's why juries (and judges, when juries are not used) are given options to find someone guilty of a lesser offense. Yes, opinions do factor into the mix. That's a reason to have more than one person making these decisions, to moderate the effects of one individual's opinion. Speaking as someone who has been on a jury, during that time when the door is shut there is a whole lot of persuading going on because you know the group is supposed to come to a consensus decision, but it's the jury's decision in the end. If the jury as a group refuses to convict that's the verdict.

That's also why jury tampering - attempting to bribe, threaten, or otherwise influence them - is seen as an extremely serious crime.

[TheFeniX]

Would that really make a difference? I am not familiar with the american justice system but I would expect that it is the duty of everyone involved be that the judge, jury, prosecutors or others to enforce the law to their best of their ability regardless of their personal opinions on the subject.

Jury Nullification goes way back in the U.S. Not saying my particular case would have made a difference, but at some point, if the general jury pool refuses to convict people for certain "crimes," prosecutors stop wasting taxpayer money on the issue.

Technically, the job of a juror is to decide guilt or innocence based on the law and the facts of the case. But you cannot be legally forced to render a verdict either way nor can you be charged with a crime for nullifying. However, getting on a jury under false pretenses can lead to a mistrial and charges filed against you from what I know (because you were under oath when questioned by the lawyers).

But if you said "I would never convict someone of X crime" and they let you on the jury anyways... well, that's a free vote not guilty vote.

[Broomstick]

Yep, when they're questioning you during voir dire you're under oath. IF they can later prove you lied about something during that questioning it's perjury. If you tell the truth, though - for example, you state clearly you're against the death penalty under any circumstances in reference to a murder trial - and they put you on the jury you can't be punished for voting your conscience.

[Steel]

I just got back from jury duty in the UK. Interesting experience.

As far as I can tell it is practically impossible to do anything about a jury that does something you do not like, as it was impressed upon us that we were never under any circumstances allowed to discuss what happened within the deliberating room. This would mean that it is impossible to determine how or why the jury came out with any verdict, as proof of any perjury would be a crime...

Interestingly from a perjury standpoint, it turns out that exactly 50% of witnesses in my case were committing perjury (or genuinely were just wrong about what they saw but described in great detail) as the two sides were totally contradictory. Obviously I can't talk about our discussions, but personally I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict, and the deliberation only lasted for about 20 minutes before we came back and I got to deliver our not guilty verdict, so draw your own conclusions about how everyone else felt.

[Kitsune]

Interestingly from a perjury standpoint, it turns out that exactly 50% of witnesses in my case were committing perjury (or genuinely were just wrong about what they saw but described in great detail) as the two sides were totally contradictory. Obviously I can't talk about our discussions, but personally I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict, and the deliberation only lasted for about 20 minutes before we came back and I got to deliver our not guilty verdict, so draw your own conclusions about how everyone else felt.

You should read about just how fallible human memory is. We all have memories which are downright false.

A good example are that there are multiple cases where a woman was raped. Later these men were exonerated by DNA. The women genuinely believe that they were raped by the men that they accused.

[Steel]

Interestingly from a perjury standpoint, it turns out that exactly 50% of witnesses in my case were committing perjury (or genuinely were just wrong about what they saw but described in great detail) as the two sides were totally contradictory. Obviously I can't talk about our discussions, but personally I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict, and the deliberation only lasted for about 20 minutes before we came back and I got to deliver our not guilty verdict, so draw your own conclusions about how everyone else felt.

You should read about just how fallible human memory is. We all have memories which are downright false.

A good example are that there are multiple cases where a woman was raped. Later these men were exonerated by DNA. The women genuinely believe that they were raped by the men that they accused.

Yep, thats why I was sure that not guilty was the way to go. Even though there was a detailed description of the object in question, and everything around the incident, there was still more than enough room for doubt that it wasn't something imagined on the part of the witness and the details were filled in by their minds. The defence actually managed to get one of the witnesses to say 'the mind fills in blanks' when asked about some details. I'm pretty certain that witness did not think those details were being filled in in his head, so that was a bit of a coup for the defence.

I'm very glad I wasn't on a rape case where there would be even less evidence and higher stakes.

The ideal case to get as a juror in my mind would be something where there was a technical issue so you can use your logic to reason about the issue, or an ethical issue so you could have a debate with the other jurors and sway people based on some kind of principles. In reality I think most cases are just limited information and ambiguity, which is a much worse situation to be presented with.

[Jaepheth]

In all seriousness, you did the right thing. I'm glad you weren't the only one who thinks the law is bogus in this regard. Maybe prosecutors will notice this if it becomes a trend.

Would that really make a difference? I am not familiar with the american justice system but I would expect that it is the duty of everyone involved be that the judge, jury, prosecutors or others to enforce the law to their best of their ability regardless of their personal opinions on the subject.

I imagine DAs may stop prosecuting minor weed offenses (for jurisdictions where the DA has a choice of which cases get prosecuted) if it takes them an inordinate amount of time and effort to get a conviction, or if there's a significant risk of jury nullification.

[Kitsune]

Yep, thats why I was sure that not guilty was the way to go. Even though there was a detailed description of the object in question, and everything around the incident, there was still more than enough room for doubt that it wasn't something imagined on the part of the witness and the details were filled in by their minds. The defence actually managed to get one of the witnesses to say 'the mind fills in blanks' when asked about some details. I'm pretty certain that witness did not think those details were being filled in in his head, so that was a bit of a coup for the defence.

I'm very glad I wasn't on a rape case where there would be even less evidence and higher stakes.

The ideal case to get as a juror in my mind would be something where there was a technical issue so you can use your logic to reason about the issue, or an ethical issue so you could have a debate with the other jurors and sway people based on some kind of principles. In reality I think most cases are just limited information and ambiguity, which is a much worse situation to be presented with.

I was in a case years ago where the defendant was a young black male who had a previous felony conviction.
He was on trial for having firearm. If you are in Virginia, it is an automatic five year sentence if you are a felon with a firearm.
Being blunt, I kind of felt sorry for him.

Ran from the cops and tossed the weapon while running. They had no fingerprints on the weapon though and the cop's story was just kind of bad. There just seemed something shady about the police officer.

The problem is that the young male took the stand and said it was his friend's weapon. If he had not taken the stand or just said "I never saw the weapon before," I think I would have seen reasonable doubt.

[Lonestar]

Interestingly from a perjury standpoint, it turns out that exactly 50% of witnesses in my case were committing perjury (or genuinely were just wrong about what they saw but described in great detail) as the two sides were totally contradictory.

During the Manson trial, the lead prosecutor advised the jury to keep copious notes as "even the strongest memory is weaker than the faintest ink". While you can have many witnesses say subjective things that can lead to a objctive conclusion(as was the case in the Manson trial), tirals that rely exclusively or very nearly so on witnesses are very weak, IMO.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As I understand it, witness testimony is usually considered the least useful form of evidence when compared to stuff like camera footage, DNA evidence, ballistics and so on.

Incidentally, there is a wonderfully irritating concept in psychology called schema, where we only remember elements of things and we subconsciously re-create the rest of it based on your own existing prejudices. There was a famous study in 1975 where participants were shown a cartoon drawing of a subway mugging for 10 seconds, and asked to explain what they saw a few minutes later. THe picture was of a white man holding a black man at gunpoint, but most of the participants said it was a black man holding a knife on the white guy.

[biostem]

IMO, the question is - is your role as a juror to simply decide based upon evidence and the letter of the law, or are you supposed to inject your own feelings and biases into the decision making process. In the marijuana example from the OP, if the question is "did the suspect have pot on him and if so, that makes him guilty of possession", then no matter your personal feelings on the matter, you must find them guilty. If, however, the question is "do you feel they should be sent to jail for possession of a small quantity of pot", then you can argue that they shouldn't. Obviously, the prosecutor would prefer the former, while the defense attorney would favor the latter.

[Esquire]

Jury nullification is a thing in US law, as has been mentioned a bunch of times. Since the structure exists, using it is as good an option as any other. Better than most, even; the US legal code has no effective way of dealing with marijuana use* and the sooner we either fix it or stop wasting taxpayer dollars, the better.

*Fine, it's illegal, I get that, but the drug has been trivially available all over the country for generations at this point, despite successive programs to crack down on its use. Clearly something isn't working.

[Borgholio]

IMO, the question is - is your role as a juror to simply decide based upon evidence and the letter of the law, or are you supposed to inject your own feelings and biases into the decision making process. In the marijuana example from the OP, if the question is "did the suspect have pot on him and if so, that makes him guilty of possession", then no matter your personal feelings on the matter, you must find them guilty. If, however, the question is "do you feel they should be sent to jail for possession of a small quantity of pot", then you can argue that they shouldn't. Obviously, the prosecutor would prefer the former, while the defense attorney would favor the latter.

That's one reason why the judge will often give a jury instructions to only discuss certain matters. Thus if he says "Discuss whether based on the evidence he deserves to go to prison", then that is more of a moral issue than if he says "Discuss if he was in possession of the pot and and violation of the law."

[PKRudeBoy]

Jury nullification goes way back in the US, and has been used many times to protect people from unjust laws, refusing to convict under the Fugitive Slave Act or during Prohibition or protestors against the Vietnam War. Hell, jury nullification is what led to truth as an absolute defense against libel in the Zenger trial. If we reach the estimated 60% nullification rates for alcohol crimes during Prohibition for victimless crimes, I think that would only be a good thing.

And yes, I'm aware that nullification was also used in the South to get whites off for crimes against black people under Jim Crow, but I think that that had more to do with problems with not having representative juries more than nullification itself.

[Purple]

Upon reading the last few posts I have to say that I have become a little confused as to how your political system is meant to work in the first place. Between jury nullification and filibustering it just seems to me that the system in question is designed with as many provisions as possible for it to be obstructed.

[Broomstick]

Actually... you are correct.

It WAS designed to be inefficient. The people developing the framework were very concerned about government moving too fast and thought by slowly it down it would help prevent tyranny since oppressive legislation couldn't be rushed through. Also, it's loaded with checks and balances everywhere, with something like jury nullification acting as a balance to both judges and legislatures.

I do sometimes question if we have too much of a "good" thing here.

[Borgholio]

Upon reading the last few posts I have to say that I have become a little confused as to how your political system is meant to work in the first place. Between jury nullification and filibustering it just seems to me that the system in question is designed with as many provisions as possible for it to be obstructed.

Pretty much. Our government and legal system were mainly designed around checks and balances to keep power out of the hands who could abuse it. Now yes I know, it's far from perfect. It lets assholes like Ted Cruz shut down the government....but that's all it does. He can't make any kind of power grab, for instance. Then in the legal world, it gives an accused every advantage in the world to walk away unless the State can prove him guilty. Again, I know that it's not perfect, but it's better to let someone of questionable character who may or may not have committed a crime walk free due to the actions of a sleazy defense attorney than let an honestly innocent person get convicted.

So basically, our governments and legal systems are based on the idea that it's better to be obstructed than let things get carried away either politically or legally.

[TheFeniX]

Nullification is useful to counter-act the justice system railroading people it doesn't like. At the end of the day, police, judges, and prosecutors all play for the same team. A jury generally has nothing invested in convictions other than their own personal biases and sense of justice. This is my one complaint against the concept of a professional jury pool: the removal of this check. Once you start putting someone in charge of regulating the Jury pool, rather than being forced to take what you've got sitting in front of you.... well, you get the same shit we have now (loaded juries) on an even larger scale.

Nullification (or, I guess, the ability to nullify) also has the added benefit of protecting jurors from being intimidated (or even thrown in jail) for not voting the way overzealous prosecutors and judges want them to and to also protect them when they don't understand the law or don't agree with it. It also helps prevent moral dilemmas, like I had. I honestly don't care that pot is illegal, I couldn't destroy some stupid kid's life over it. Any justice system that can force me to do so, under legal penalty, can go get fucked.

[Simon_Jester]

Nullification is more of an emergent property than a designed feature of the system. What is an accepted feature of the system that juries are not part of the judiciary and are not liable/responsible for providing the verdicts the judiciary wants. Nullification is a side effect- that if a jury sincerely believes that a defendant has not committed a crime... their position of independence and immunity from being punished for a verdict mean that they can get away with nullification.

And Purple, it may be very hard for you to wrap your brain around this- basically, the American constitutional system is a post-revolutionary constitution designed around the idea that (gasp!) laws may be unjust, and that government power may be used for injustice. The basic system was also designed at a time when few functional democracies had ever existed, so it made a number of design choices that were arguably not prudent.

[Purple]

I do sometimes question if we have too much of a "good" thing here.

I understand the general notion behind it to be sure. But it just seems to be as you said too much of a "good" thing. It seems that in attempting to avoid "efficient but rootless" you have went into the other extreme and made a system that can't get anything done as it is just too easy for people to effectively shut you down at the click of a button. And instead of creating a system that is safe from abuse you simply shifted who can abuse it.

[TheFeniX]

It seems that in attempting to avoid "efficient but rootless" you have went into the other extreme and made a system that can't get anything done as it is just too easy for people to effectively shut you down at the click of a button.And instead of creating a system that is safe from abuse you simply shifted who can abuse it.

What are the odds of crafting a system safe from abuse? The abuses facing the American justice system have little to do with people refusing the convict for stupid offenses and more with lack of funding for fighting said offenses and overloading the system with useless bullshit.

The system in America works so slowly and is so fucked up because they've criminalized (no matter how negligible the charge may be) pretty much fucking everything. And mandatory minimums and permanent records are the newest wave of fucking over people before their lives even get started. Seriously, how much money and time is it worth spending to nail some kid with under 1oz of pot?

That kid has to fight those charges: he has no other choice. The court has forced his hand. Otherwise, that tiny bit of pot is going to stick with him the rest of his life. That's the real abuse: that there is no other alternative in Texas when busted with some pot, than to hire a lawyer and hope you get off because certain misdemeanor convictions can count as bad, or worse, than a felony conviction.

Let me put it this way: we have a few jobsites that give you a life-time ban if you have a drug conviction or positive drug test. And this is truly life-time. However, they have to policy on hiring felons. So, we could hire a convicted murderer to work on their site with no issues, but Mr. dumbass high school kid can't step foot on the premise for some pot.

[Purple]

Let me put it this way: we have a few jobsites that give you a life-time ban if you have a drug conviction or positive drug test. And this is truly life-time. However, they have to policy on hiring felons. So, we could hire a convicted murderer to work on their site with no issues, but Mr. dumbass high school kid can't step foot on the premise for some pot.

I don't mean to derail the discussion here or anything. But is there also not the third option? As in, if the kid knows that being caught with pot nets him such severe penalties why can't the kid just... I don't know... NOT BUY POT?

Don't get me wrong here. I don't think this system is sane either. But I can see the effect the people making it wanted to achieve. And I can fully understand the mechanisms by which it is supposed to achieve it. The confusing part is why it is not working. If I lived in your system I would not want to be on the same phone call with someone I know knows someone whose cousin touched pot once whilst drunk.

[PKRudeBoy]

Let me put it this way: we have a few jobsites that give you a life-time ban if you have a drug conviction or positive drug test. And this is truly life-time. However, they have to policy on hiring felons. So, we could hire a convicted murderer to work on their site with no issues, but Mr. dumbass high school kid can't step foot on the premise for some pot.

I don't mean to derail the discussion here or anything. But is there also not the third option? As in, if the kid knows that being caught with pot nets him such severe penalties why can't the kid just... I don't know... NOT BUY POT?

Don't get me wrong here. I don't think this system is sane either. But I can see the effect the people making it wanted to achieve. And I can fully understand the mechanisms by which it is supposed to achieve it. The confusing part is why it is not working. If I lived in your system I would not want to be on the same phone call with someone I know knows someone whose cousin touched pot once whilst drunk.

Sure, he could just not buy pot, but what exactly is your point. An interracial couple in Virginia in the 60's could just not get married either, but that doesn't make the law just. Not to say that those two things are the same magnitude of injustice, but saying well, why don't you just not do it doesn't really add anything.

But to actually get into why the kid doesn't just not buy pot, well, a) the risk taking part of the brain doesn't fully develop until the mid 20's; b) the chance of getting caught any one time, or even at all, are negligible; c) the way that the rest of the country and pop culture treats it as a (barely) forbidden fruit.

[TheFeniX]

I don't mean to derail the discussion here or anything. But is there also not the third option? As in, if the kid knows that being caught with pot nets him such severe penalties why can't the kid just... I don't know... NOT BUY POT?

He's a dumbass high school kid: he should be given some leeway, especially when it comes to crimes like this. We're not talking about murder, assault, intent to sell, or even use. We're talking straight possession. I try and keep up with the law as best I can, but before sitting on this jury pool, I had no idea pot possession was a lifetime conviction.

Even if I didn't think pot should be legal (or at the least, decriminalized and handled with fines alone), in no way do I think it deserves the importance the government thinks it does.

Here's a list of a few class B misdeamenors in Texas:

DWI (Driving while intoxicated) first offense
Harassment
Prostitution
Terrorist threat
Criminal trespass
Evading arrest on foot (running from the police)
False report to a police officer and false 911 calls
Child enticement
Failure to pay child support
Indecent exposure
Minor drug possession
Vandalism

With the exception of prostitution, which still involves another actor, Drug possession stands out because you have to jump through multiple mental hoops to turn it into a crime with a victim. Would you really know, if not told, the possession of a bit of pot is on the same legal level as exposing yourself in public? No, you'd likely think it's like public intoxication or illegal possession of alcohol: no worse than a traffic ticket. You'd be wrong. Weed will fuck your life up and it has nothing to do with those shitty "Truth" (or whatever) commercials.