Is Greg Miller Serious?
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.
Patterico:
You are correct in surmising that my comment was sarcastic.
I think that many of the arguments made by others (in support of jury nullification) were done in good faith. I don’t have a problem with people having an *opinion* about what is “fair” or not, but jurors are entrusted with a level of power that goes beyond freedom of expression. That power should be wielded responsibly. (Everyone OK with doctors and judges resorting to their personal consciences in deciding what’s best for all of us on the receiving end of their decisions?)
It’s a tiny step from a genuine attempt to provide conscience-based justice to using racial hatred, political bias, or whatever as the basis for convictions (or acquitals). As you have demonstrated, there are seemingly unfair consequences to following the letter of the law and instructions of the judge. (I’m sure there a real life parallels to your hypotheticals.) Jimmy Carter got it right when he noted that life’s not fair. Our current system is the best we’ve got, and the alternative of following one’s inner voice is ultimately more unfair.
No one is above the law.
You either believe that, or you don’t. If you do, it applies to jurors as well as those who have committed crimes.
With jury nullification, take your pick: tyranny by the majority, or anarchy by the minority.
Greg Miller (3660a8) — 9/4/2006 @ 11:04 pmYou have no idea how much your comment sounds like actual things many of the commenters here have said.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/4/2006 @ 11:11 pmBut as deadpan humor, it’s brilliant.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/4/2006 @ 11:12 pmGreg–
I just about had a heart attack reading that.
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 9/5/2006 @ 3:30 amask “Your wife is killed. The murderer is on trial, and you’re in the courtroom. You find out that the jury supports nullification. What do you feel now?”
steve miller (240ee3) — 9/5/2006 @ 6:28 am“ask “Your wife is killed. The murderer is on trial, and you’re in the courtroom. You find out that the jury supports nullification. What do you feel now?”
Hallelujah, and pass the golf clubs! (channeling O.J.)
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 9/5/2006 @ 7:44 amI’ve been enjoying this whole topic and discussion. Here is a case I am aware of that I’d like some opinions on. This is a grand jury case, not a trial.
An 18-year-old male and 16-year-old female had sexual relations, freely admitted by both. The prosecutor seeks two counts under the rape statutes and another four counts under child endangerment and child sexual harassment laws although neither the female nor her parents filed any complaint. If indicted, and convicted, the 18-year-old male could face up to life in prison and a sexual predator status if ever paroled.
Some pertinent facts in the case. The male and female have been living in a common law marriage for 18 months. All four parents support a marriage. The parents of the female wanted the male to graduate high school and get a job before giving their approval for the marriage. The clerk, on a technicality, denied the application for a marriage license. The clerk’s denial was what brought the case to the prosecutor’s attention. The male and female were living in the home of the female’s parents.
Yes, an actual case in a ‘hick’ southern town. Seems that the morals and actions of everyone involved ran contrary to state law. Would you vote to indict? I am not a lawyer, obviously. But two grand juries in town refused to do so. The prosecutor was upset (putting it mildly). The jurors were too, at the prosecutor. Did they do wrong?
Jim (07c383) — 9/5/2006 @ 8:25 amI imagine you were looking for a more professional opinion, here are my unprofessional 2 cents:
If this is just a grand jury the judges on the panel should be able to easily dismiss the charges. I think this fits as the perfect example of my opinion that judges are there because you can’t write a law for all possible circumstances. If the letter of the law was the only way things should be done, then as is commonly said, a computer would do just as well.
I’m not sure what the legal implications of my view are, and I know there are times that this can get dangerously close to the judge making law, but things like this seem to be well with the the realm of what most people would call reasonable and acceptable.
galletador (b58eba) — 9/5/2006 @ 10:58 amYou make a VERY GOOD point about those who support jury nullification, when asking if Federal Judges should follow their consciences above the law.
Laws apply equally to all in this country, and most of these passionate nullification advocates wouldn’t like it, at all, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg toed the same line they propose for themselves.
Martin Hague (8199db) — 9/5/2006 @ 2:17 pmIt was so clearly deadpan sarcasm, very well done, but I had zero dout after 1.5 sentences. How do you miss that?
For my money, this technique is far more effective than a serious argument. And way more fun.
wizard61 (ec9715) — 9/5/2006 @ 8:33 pmIt was so clearly deadpan sarcasm, very well done, but I had zero dout after 1.5 sentences. How do you miss that?
I didn’t miss it. I just noticed that it read so similarly to many serious arguments made here over the past couple of weeks.
My guess: you haven’t been reading those same comments.
Go back and do so. It’s eye-opening.
Patterico (de0616) — 9/5/2006 @ 8:36 pmIt’s 99% of lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name. If you want people to trust the legal system, then give them a reason to trust it.
Tell you what, the next time you have a guilty defendant, plead him guilty straight up. No bargaining, no discovery, no nothing. Just go into Court, and announce, “He did it, Judge!” Or, the next time a client lies to you, drop the case immediately and announce to the Court that you can’t trust your client. Give us a reason to believe you.
As it is now, if an attorney tells me the sky is blue, I go outside and check.
As long as lawyers game the system, don’t get bent out of shape when laymen game the system. Heal the brothers and sisters at the bar, and maybe the rest of won’t gag when we think about attorneys.
PawPaw (e644b0) — 9/8/2006 @ 11:31 am[…] the site owner and primary writer on Patterico’s Pontifications, had a series of articles in which he clearly did not support jury nullification. But one of the articles indirectly pointed to a 2008 […]
A serious governmental over-reach « Common Sense Political Thought (73d96f) — 2/25/2011 @ 11:36 am