BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jury Nullification - good or bad concept?
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
Jury Nulification
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 7
Guests cannot vote 
vidcapper
post Jan 21 2018, 08:07 AM
Post #1
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,599
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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

Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury can vote a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government's law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking a government's law. This may happen in both civil and criminal trials. In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the act the government considers illegal. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Jan 21 2018, 01:07 PM
Post #2
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 26,054
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


There are times when it is appropriate for a jury effectively to say "up yours" to the prosecution It happened in 1980-something when a civil servant (Clive Ponting) was charged with leaking documents to the press. There was no doubt that he had done it, but the jury acquitted him. The same logic applies if a punishment is seen as excessive. A jury would be perfectly justified, for example, in acquitting somebody accused of nicking twenty quid from a till if the likely penalty was 15 years in prison.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Feb 1 2018, 03:15 PM
Post #3
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,599
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jan 21 2018, 01:07 PM) *
There are times when it is appropriate for a jury effectively to say "up yours" to the prosecution It happened in 1980-something when a civil servant (Clive Ponting) was charged with leaking documents to the press. There was no doubt that he had done it, but the jury acquitted him. The same logic applies if a punishment is seen as excessive. A jury would be perfectly justified, for example, in acquitting somebody accused of nicking twenty quid from a till if the likely penalty was 15 years in prison.


I wish I'd been on Tony Martin's jury...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2018 - 08:25 PM