Food Not Bombs trial rescheduled after too many jurors objected to $500 fine for feeding homeless
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
houstonchronicle.com
Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows' attorney.
You are viewing a single comment
Yeah but pipe down about it during jury selection, they screen for us.
Weird how it works. The one time I got jury duty I was ready to nullify and got given a case where the accused was accused of a raping a 11 year old.
Hmm I don't think I am going to nullify that particular law. Sounds like a good one to keep on the books.
They rejected me anyhow, guess the defense didn't want a parent of young daughters on the jury for some strange reason
Whenever they call up jurors for drug trials where I'm at they'll inevitably end up throwing out most of the pool because even trials related to legit scum who are peddling the life ruining stuff can be derailed by the Legalize it Campaign apparently
Just because you think the law is bad doesn't mean you like criminals. They are unrelated. A morally good person can be a criminal, a shitty human being could always be following the law.
Nullify bad laws.
Yeah that's the rub though, I don't trust people to decide what the bad laws are given which ones they've done it for previously.
The bad laws that get nullified tend to be a lot less impactful than the good ones that get nullified,
The practical application of it historically has convinced me that nullification is something akin to the death penalty,
There are without a doubt cases where it ought to be applied, but I do not at all trust my fellow humans to be capable and consistent judges of those circumstances.
Do you know how representative democracy works?
Right but a civil servant in a black dress is trustworthy. Like for example Clarence Thomas.
First, that assumes I don't think judicial review is a crock of shit, which I do
Second, the legislative process of changing the law with a large body representing the broad national political crossection of opinions regarding how the law should change is far more legit than a bunch of Idaho's good ol' bois getting to decide they rather don't care for the notion of enforcing a law that would prosecute a man for raping a 12 year old because "oh well he's from a good family! We don't wanna ruin his life now do we‽"
Right except evidence is that the law seldom reflects opinion polls. Nice hypothetical btw here is something evidential: the majority of states have rolled out restrictions on abortion in defiance of the voting public in the past year..
When you fix the Supreme Court and when you make the legislative branch perfectly match the will and the demographics of the people I will join your side. Better get started as most of Congress is over 65
The evidential also points to you advocating the tool racists use to free lynch mob particpants but sure buddy get all morally high and mighty in defense of letting twelve randos apply law of the halo effect.
I'd tell you to get off your high horse but we both know its an overworked ass.
Hey your friends are doing this now:
https://lemmy.world/post/11095993?scrollToComments=true
Any other evidence you want to cite from before my parents (they have two grandchildren in their teens now) were born? You know in contrast to the examples I have mentioned that have occurred in the past year?
Yes democracy of the jury doesn't work because a shitty county in a shit state in the 1950s did some shit things. But YOUR Supreme Court and YOUR legislative branch is perfect. For example Tex Cruz and Clarence Thomas.
Yeah but here's the thing, if they can prove you knowingly steered the jury towards nullification post selection they'll prosecute you for perjury because the screening questions basically total up to "Would you nullify a guilty verdict? Yes or No?", so doing it on purpose and being too obvious about it can get you put in front of your own jury.
Which is why you stick to the facts. Dispute them.
Testimony? Witness is lying.
Forensics? You think it is pseudoscience.
Footage? Photoshop, easy to do.
Confession? Given under duress.
It isn't that hard to be a cynic. Just spend some time on the internet.