I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.
Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.
You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?
You’re correct in that the jury prevents a corrupt government from convicting innocent people.
That’s why a jury’s role is to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. You will note there’s no third option for a jury to return a verdict of “guilty but exempt”.
Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply? That’s the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
Juries decide whether defendants are guilty of the charges against them. They do not decide whether the law ought to apply. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re right… I’m not going to be able to put an argument before you that you’ll be able to comprehend.
It’s patently obvious to everyone that a fair and just system of laws needs to apply equally to everyone, even in cases where we dislike the victim.
you ‘equally’ refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict
That’s not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.
Luigi was acting in self defense
If that is Luigi’s legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That’s not jury nullification.
‘not guilty’, regardless of the letter of the law.
This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren’t jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don’t defense attorneys tell jury’s that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?
Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn’t support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don’t have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.
You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven’t really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.
I guess this is the core of the issue.
I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.
Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.
You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?
I can provide no further information that is going to help you see the point.
God speed.
I could say the same to everyone who has replied to me in this thread.
Please continue believing that things would be better with a vibe-based legal process.
Also godspeed is one word.
deleted by creator
You’re correct in that the jury prevents a corrupt government from convicting innocent people.
That’s why a jury’s role is to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. You will note there’s no third option for a jury to return a verdict of “guilty but exempt”.
Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply? That’s the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
deleted by creator
Juries decide whether defendants are guilty of the charges against them. They do not decide whether the law ought to apply. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re right… I’m not going to be able to put an argument before you that you’ll be able to comprehend.
It’s patently obvious to everyone that a fair and just system of laws needs to apply equally to everyone, even in cases where we dislike the victim.
deleted by creator
That’s not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.
If that is Luigi’s legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That’s not jury nullification.
This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren’t jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don’t defense attorneys tell jury’s that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?
Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn’t support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don’t have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.
You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven’t really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
If you actually read the wiki page, you will find it supports everything I’ve said.
deleted by creator