• bemenaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wasn’t the guy who killed his sons rapist in plain sight of everyone let off due to jury nullification?

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Gary Plauché killed his son’s rapist in front of a TV crew’s rolling camera, he was only charged with manslaughter and received 5 years probation and 300 hours of community service partly due to state prosecutors not believing they would be able to successfully convict him of murder due to the public’s widespread support of his actions