Thread: Jury Duty, The Bedrock of our Democracy

Originally Posted by Bruno

I know. Over here it isn't. And that illustrates my point.
Even though the law says it isn't, the jury can say 'I don't care. Not guilty'
Whereas the mandate of the judge is to apply law as it is written.

I am under the impression that if that were to happen then the judge could declare a mistrial (if the jury willingly admits that it based its judgment on unlawful evidences eg. I don't care what the law says). And I thought the purpose of the jury was for several peers to weigh evidences in light of the law

Originally Posted by Bruno

I know. Over here it isn't. And that illustrates my point.
Even though the law says it isn't, the jury can say 'I don't care. Not guilty'
Whereas the mandate of the judge is to apply law as it is written.

that is an incorrect action for the jury to take. imho, a tribunal should be used instead. that way, rather than simply say "i don't feel like following the law, so i'm going to cause a mistrial" the tribunal can say "i think i'll change the law"

Originally Posted by jockeys

that is an incorrect action for the jury to take. imho, a tribunal should be used instead. that way, rather than simply say "i don't feel like following the law, so i'm going to cause a mistrial" the tribunal can say "i think i'll change the law"

It's a bit more complicated that that of course.
Belgian law has a couple of clauses which are complicated in wording, but are comparable to 'temporary insanity' style rules. For example, if someone murders your kid in front of you and then turns to run, it is no longer a self-defense situation. But if you catch the perp and string him up to the nearest lantern, there are options for your defense to get you free.

So what usually happens in cases like I mentioned, is that the defense counsel will argue one of these defenses, no matter how farfetched it sounds. In the case of the jeweler, it was fairly obvious that he had had enough, and decided to shoot the robber with the gun he bought beforehand.

The defense counsel handed the jury a way out, and they took it. It is up to the jury to decide. It is up to the jury to decide whether they think the accused was covered by the defense argument or not.
This generally only works in situations where the jury can identify with the accused. Note that this also only works if the defendant admits the facts.
If you try to lie / hide, and this is discovered during the trial, then you hang (metaphorically speaking) because the defense is no longer able to hand the jury a way out.

Originally Posted by jockeys

the tribunal can say "i think i'll change the law"

Actually, in the US there is a concept known as jury nullification.
Doesn't this do exactly what you say is illegal?

EDIT: I was told that in the US, mentioning jury nullification is an instantaneous dismissal from jury duty if you mention it upfront, because judges really don't like it.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's a bit more complicated that that of course.
Belgian law has a couple of clauses which are complicated in wording, but are comparable to 'temporary insanity' style rules. For example, if someone murders your kid in front of you and then turns to run, it is no longer a self-defense situation. But if you catch the perp and string him up to the nearest lantern, there are options for your defense to get you free.

So what usually happens in cases like I mentioned, is that the defense counsel will argue one of these defenses, no matter how farfetched it sounds. In the case of the jeweler, it was fairly obvious that he had had enough, and decided to shoot the robber with the gun he bought beforehand.

The defense counsel handed the jury a way out, and they took it. It is up to the jury to decide. It is up to the jury to decide whether they think the accused was covered by the defense argument or not.
This generally only works in situations where the jury can identify with the accused. Note that this also only works if the defendant admits the facts.
If you try to lie / hide, and this is discovered during the trial, then you hang (metaphorically speaking) because the defense is no longer able to hand the jury a way out.

Right. By extension, the jury must also follow the law as written (or in the case of the US, interpreted). I think this is the point everyone was struggleing with previously.

-Rob

Originally Posted by sicboater

Right. By extension, the jury must also follow the law as written (or in the case of the US, interpreted). I think this is the point everyone was struggleing with previously.

-Rob

Yes, that is correct. It is the ability of the jury to choose which argument they follow that provides the way out.
A judge otoh is much more restricted if he has to choose.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Right. By extension, the jury must also follow the law as written (or in the case of the US, interpreted). I think this is the point everyone was struggleing with previously.

-Rob

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yes, that is correct. It is the ability of the jury to choose which argument they follow that provides the way out.

Ok, then how do you reconcile that with this?

Originally Posted by Bruno

Even though the law says it isn't, the jury can say 'I don't care. Not guilty'

I am so confused

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, in the US there is a concept known as jury nullification.
Doesn't this do exactly what you say is illegal?

EDIT: I was told that in the US, mentioning jury nullification is an instantaneous dismissal from jury duty if you mention it upfront, because judges really don't like it.

i tribunal judges not only a case, but also the fairness of the law. so if they feel the defendant is guilty of violating the law, but the law itself is unjust, they may change the law.

i am not qualified to speak on jury nullification, but what you say, if true, wouldn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Ok, then how do you reconcile that with this?

I am so confused

The joys of posting something terse and then having to explain it

The jury has to follow the legal procedure of course.
There are legal provisions that can be suggested by the defense counsel, and the jury can follow them, even if they are really farfetched.

So in the case of the jeweler, the jury basically said they didn't care about the fact that it was manslaughter by following the argument that the jeweler was in an emotional state where he was not responsible for his actions.

And I don't know how it is in the US, but a district attorney has no standing to appeal the jury decision. Appeal is only possible for procedural errors, fraud and things like that. If the 12 say 'not guilty' then that is the end of it.

This means that the jury has a significant of power to put the arguments of the district attorney aside IF they identify with the accused. So they can decide 'not guilty' even if the manslaughter case is proven and factually correct.

Of course by now I have written more explanation than I would have done if I had just written it in full the first time. That'll teach me to cut corners

Originally Posted by Bruno

in the case of the jeweler, the jury basically said they didn't care about the fact that it was manslaughter by following the argument that the jeweler was in an emotional state where he was not responsible for his actions.

Ah, so if I understand correctly, the jury could do this but the judge would not have been able to?

Originally Posted by Bruno

The joys of posting something terse and then having to explain it

Maybe you just know that the simpler minded among us are going to be confused anyway LOL