this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Not the Onion

2223 readers
15 users here now

For true stories that are so ridiculous, that you could have sworn it was an !theonion worthy story.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I really can't see a scenario where the jury don't find him guilty. They really don't have a choice, they have to uphold the law as it is written. It is not within the remit of a trial to make new law.

No matter the ethical considerations he did kill someone. The law is very clear that murder is not acceptable even if you personally think it's justifiable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They really don't have a choice, they have to uphold the law as it is written.

They do, indeed. However, the "written law" includes the sixth amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the accused the right to a jury. The flip side of that guarantee is that the juror is constitutionally empowered to reach a decision.

Constitutional powers supersede legislated law. The juror is not beholden to legislated law. Indeed, if they feel that strictly applying a lower law results in an injustice, they have a constitutionally-imposed duty to reject the short-sighted legislated law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Right so what part of that would allow them to justify murder?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That question is nonsensical: 1. The jury never has to justify anything; 2. "Murder" is a legislated concept. The jury is not beholden to the legislature, and is free to reject the laws they create.

Where the jury feels that enforcing the legislated law would be an injustice, they are free to rule "not guilty", even if they believe the accused's actions violate that law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You don't know what Jury Nullification is do you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It never happens. Least of all for a murder case.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There is precedent.

Something similar happened for a man who killed a Christian Science practitioner for forbidding him from taking his son to the doctor despite getting medical care himself.

Disclaimer: Christian Science is neither science nor Christian. It was basically a clickbait name given to a Quantum Mysticism cult that existed before Quantum Physics was really a thing. Please do not "Skydaddy" it up like a common redditor in response.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does this count as murder? https://www.history.com/news/the-original-wild-west-showdown-bill-hickok-davis-tutt

He got arrested after killing someone and the jury found him not guilty with a lot of witnesses seeing the act.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I don't think something that happened in the 1800s is particularly applicable to the 21st century.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don't think it will happen, and especially not for something this high profile, but Jury Nullification is essentially the "he did it, but we don't see his actions as punishable". It'd be a huge uproar if that happened too.