I love this comment by Greg Miller on jury nullification:
I just don’t see a problem with jury nullification. It’s ridiculous to let evidence, argument, and jury instructions be the basis for rendering a decision, when my conscience knows better. I think I would know whether or not a person is guilty, or whether the law is equipped to render justice, irrespective of what the prosecution or defense presents or the judge says. A juror should compensate for the perceived competence of each side, and be free to fill in evidence that was probably excluded (for one side or the other) by arcane rules of evidence. (Figuring that out would give my wandering mind something to while the witnesses and attorneys drone on.)
I know that both sides cheat, so it’s better that I trust my judgment instead of the faulty system that is currently in place. And where the hell [d]o judges get off giving jury instructions? I think my conscience can figure out the proper outcome without the meddling of a know-it-all.
What better way to celebrate freedom and individuality, than for me to follow my gut feelings? That’s much better than following overly detailed laws, which are laughably offered up as the democratically expressed will of society. Every one knows that legislatures and legal system are composed of idiots, and corrupt idiots at that.
Whether it’s some outsiders agitatin’ about voter rights–and getting their just reward–or a repressed member of my race
“evenin’ up the score” by killing someone who probably deserved it, it’s better for me to render true justice than be bound by inflexible laws and jury instructions.
Those advocating jury nullification would want to have me on the jury in their trials. I would do everything possible to ensure that they received the verdict that my conscience dictates. What more could they want?
What I like best about it is this: I don’t know whether he is serious or not.
Is it a deadpan mocking of some of the silliest arguments by those who support jury nullification?
Or is he completely serious?
Having read dozens (perhaps hundreds) of comments on the issue over the past several days, I just don’t know for sure. The penultimate paragraph suggests sarcasm, so I’m guessing deadpan sarcasm.
If that’s what it is, it’s really, really deadpan. Because I just don’t know for sure whether he means it or not.
That worries me. But it also amuses me.