General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: San Diego Mayor Urges Jury Nullification for MJ Dispensary Case [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)That was to take the power of conviction from the King. The Crown could charge you, try you, but could not convict you. The principles of Jury Nullification go back to St. Augustine, who taught that an unjust law, is no law. So Juries have always had the power to say Not Guilty if they thought a law was unjust, or unjustly applied. However, the Legal System always tells the Juror's that they must convict if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the act. Jurors tend to convict, because they are ill educated about the history of the jury, and the power they alone hold.
I've long hoped that the Juries would be educated about this history, and given an ideal of what kind of power they hold. Because there are several times when convictions were unjust, and I would like to believe that the jury had they known their rights, would have found the Defendant not guilty for an unjust law, or one that is unjustly applied.
One comes to mind now. I am not a fan of guns, in any way, shape, or form. Yet there was a case a year or two ago. The owner of a rifle loaned it to a friend. The rifle was old, and unbeknown to the owner, dangerously worn. The rifle malfunctioned, and emptied the magazine in a runaway manner. The ATF and Justice Department decided the owner of the firearm had illegally transferred a machine gun and got the conviction. Again, I am no fan of guns. However, A malfunction, a warn part, is not the intent needed. Despite the fact I do not believe in private ownership of guns, I think I would have stood firm on not guilty. Because the intent of the law was to prevent someone from knowingly transferring a machine gun. At a minimum, it would have been a mistrial with my obstinate possibly obdurate refusal to consider Guilty.
It was in my mind, akin to a tire blowing out on your car due to debris on a roadway. It happens at speed, without warning. You swerve uncontrollably because the car has left what can be considered reasonable driver control. You collide with a van, and a child dies. An accident, absolutely. Tragic, certainly. Manslaughter, vehicular or otherwise, absolutely not. I don't understand the prevalence of prosecutions that seem to want to make a Federal Case out of every person jaywalking across a bloody street.