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.
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.
By the lawyers. There’s nothing to stop normal people from talking about it, as long as you don’t talk about it in the courthouse.
I agree with you there and would go a step further to note that public discourse on anonymous forums is extremely helpful for people to add context and philosophy to the understanding of the third option.
Many people here that are taking to discussing this are the outliers, just by being aware of it, and by being aware of it we can understand its potential use for good or ill and can contextualize the discussion in that frame of reference long before any of us are called to be on a jury, my concern would be those that do not take to discussing law, politics, and philosophy prior to being called to a jury being made aware of the third option with little time to reflect on its implications.
I think some people will browse the discussion and not truly reflect on the contents until possibly months later, while others that are directly engaging in the discussion will reflect currently and posit their views now while also being willing to amend those views should a more appropriate philosophy or fact be made available during the discussion.
Because different people will reflect at different rates this can have a deleterious effect on a trial if one learns of the third option too soon with little ability to reflect on the meaning and implication of a, usually unprofessional (law-career wise, not necessarily in manners), panel of jurors’ choices.
It’s always important for the jurors to respect the evidence before their own bias and sometimes people don’t have the ability to disconnect their emotions from the logic present to be able to do that, but discussions on public forums with participation from many people from a wide array of backgrounds will allow for a more diverse and effective toolset to engage a trial with, ideally leading to a ‘more effective’ ruling from the jury.
Ultimately it comes down to the wide variance of educational quality that everyone even within the same society can be impacted by, whether it be due to their own individual actions or those of the municipal, state/provincial, or national actions on the education quality and quantity, it requires active discussion and reflection not only of the choice but the ramifications the choice can have beyond the trial itself.
I tend to agree with the scholars that believe the jury is the ‘god of the courtroom’, but I am also extremely jaded by my personal experiences with various large groups of people and their seeming willingness to ignore reality to ‘fit in’ or ‘feel better’. The number of times people label me as a pessimist when I’m trying to be objectively realistic is startling and seriously concerning.
Ultimately I would hope people would, with ample reflection, direct their attentions to discovering what the ‘right’ course of action is, as opposed to the ‘moral’ or ‘easy’ choices tend to be.
I agree, we should make discussion of this stuff a thing again. It used to be, but at some point everyone agreed that politics was a taboo subject. Better to talk about your gender correct conversational topic. Which is ridiculous to hear in a democracy.
Speech is restricted in the courthouse? What the fuck?
Yes, and there are good reasons for it. Imagine if the victims family met the jurors and told them stories from the victim’s childhood.
Of course authoritarian figures take this good reason and stretch it out to cover things people should know about too. In the case of jury nullification the reason is how it was used by white juries through history. They would routinely return a not guilty verdict if the victim was black.
But that can also be solved with a diverse jury and majority verdict for a half sentence. (10 years instead of 20, and no capital punishment without a unanimous jury). They went with restricting speech on it because it also affected the shit laws they were pushing about drugs and protesting.