diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/entry')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md | 8 |
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md b/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md index bd1946c..f33bb4b 100644 --- a/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md +++ b/content/entry/fighting-the-war-on-drugs-with-jury-nullification.md @@ -26,13 +26,13 @@ So it's actually the laws that are undemocratic. Nullifying the drug laws in cou ## Doesn't Jury Nullification Set a Bad Precedent? Now onto the second question. Does jury nullification set a bad precedent? -Just for the sake of argument, let's entertain the [slippery slope fallacy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) and assume the worst case. Using jury nullification against the War on Drugs leads all jurors to start voting according to their personal sense of justice over the law in every case. Where does this leave us? +Just for the sake of argument, let's entertain the [slippery slope fallacy](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) and assume the worst case. Using jury nullification against the War on Drugs leads to jurors being more likely to vote guilty for defendants they dislike, even if they believe the defendant is not guilty. -More people being aware of jury nullification could lead to jurors being more likely to vote guilty for defendants they dislike, even if they believe the defendant is not guilty. But the judge can override a guilty verdict if jury nullification is obvious. They cannot overturn an acquittal though. And even if a defendant gets convicted, they still have a chance to appeal. So jury nullification doesn't lend itself to guilty verdicts. +Judges can still override a guilty verdict if jury nullification is obvious. They cannot overturn an acquittal though. And even if a defendant gets convicted, they still have a chance to appeal. So jury nullification doesn't lend itself to guilty verdicts. -The bigger concern I think is that jurors would vote to acquit someone who is guilty of grievous crimes. For instance, Trump supporters may vote to acquit the insurrectionists who raided the U.S. capitol building. This is a legitimate concern. In the past, jurors voted to acquit lynch mobs because of underlying racist sympathies. +The bigger concern is that jurors would vote to acquit someone who is guilty of grievous crimes. For instance, Trump supporters may vote to acquit the insurrectionists who raided the U.S. Capitol building. In the past, jurors voted to acquit lynch mobs because of underlying racist sympathies. But Trump Supporters, lynch mobs, and other extremists are so radicalized they probably vote according to their own personal sense of justice anyways. So nothing is lost. -But I want to point out that today and even back then, the main issue was not people evading conviction on grievous crimes. It was people who don't belong in jail getting convicted anyways. A few insurrectionists evading the law is a small price to pay in exchange for thousands of nonviolent drug offenders not going to prison. +Even if using jury nullification against the War on Drugs did lead extremists to more often acquit people they're sympathetic towards, the main issue is not people evading conviction on grievous crimes. It's people who don't belong in jail getting convicted anyways. # Conclusion The potential downsides to jury nullification for nonviolent drug offenses are clearly outweighed by the benefits. I most likely won't be asked to serve on a jury again now, but if the day ever comes and I get a nonviolent drug case, well you can probably figure out how I'm going to vote. |