• jayrhacker@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    7 months ago

    It was also used during prohibition, and courts do more than discourage it, you can be held in contempt for mentioning it.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      How is it intended to be used then, just pretend it doesn’t exist till final deliberations?

      It still exists, so when is it intended for?

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        ·
        7 months ago

        It exists only as a consequence of two other requirements of the jury process. 1) jurors cannot be held accountable for any decision they make as a jury and 2) any not guilty verdict delivered by a jury is absolute and final.

      • bemenaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It is meant to be a final check and balance on the courts by the populace to prevent tyrannical abuse of power. Say locking up political opposition, as an example.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s a common belief, but it’s not correct. It isn’t MEANT as anything. It’s purely incidental. A jury not guilty finding is irreversible. And jurors have certain criminal and civil immunity in their roles as jurors. Both of those facts are important for the functioning of our legal system, but they create a loophole. This loophole was named “Jury nullification” and was mostly used for terrible things like letting racists off.

          I’m not saying it’s not possible to use it for good, but it’s certainly not some intended function of the justice system that’s being kept quiet by the powers that be.