I was prompted by this article:
Jury Nullification : Peers Refuse to Convict Disabled Vet in Pot Bust - 12.160Mhz ... Resisting the New World Order to think a bit more about the ins and outs of jury nullification. The article relates to jury nullification in a case of marijuana possession by a Vietnam veteran, Loren Swift. As part of his defense the argued that Mr. Swift used marijuana as a means of dealing with chronic body pain and PTSD. Rather than acquitting Mr. Swift on his charges, the jury chose to find that the
law was unjust.
As I understand it, jury nullification only applies to criminal cases, not civil. But it is within the rights and obligation of the jury to decide not just on the facts of the case, but on the law behind the case. So cases where the RIAA is suing in civil court for damages from file sharing wouldn't be subject to jury nullification. However, if the suit was criminal pursuant to copyright infringement law, the law could be nullified for that case. Would that weaken a civil outcome? I don't know.
My questions for my fellow TFPers:
1. Did you already know about jury nullification? One of the points that the article makes is that many people don't know about jury nullification as judges and prosecutors don't want to make juries aware of the process.
2. What, if any, laws do you consider unjust, or unjustly applied, to the point where you would consider jury nullification?
I feel that there are a number of laws right now that are simply not in the best interest of the people of this country. Prostitution and drug possession are two that spring to mind as being over-prosecuted and not worth the time and money that are spent on them. Why ruin someone's life and overcrowd a prison because they wanted to get a $50 blowjob or get high on the weekend? Yes, I realize that a lot of these crimes get plead down without going to trial. But maybe more people would go to trial if they knew that juries just weren't going to stand for these kind of cases being prosecuted. Am I being naive? Let me know.