What the fuck. How did journalism get this utterly fucked?
Experts point to a phenomenon called jury nullification, which occurs when a jury votes to acquit a defendant even though they may believe they committed a crime.
No, there is no “may”! It is jury nullification only when the jury believes the defendant committed a crime. There is no “may” about it.
Fucking so afraid to actually write something they will insert this uncertain language everywhere to the point it doesn’t even make sense.
What is the point in reading your article, when even you don’t seem to believe what you are writing is correct?!
if they stray from the path, they know they’ll get fired in an instant, and theres no qualms about firing them because there’s a hundred hungry replacements in the wings.
Yeah, the “may” totally changes it.
If the jury thinks the defendant is not guilty, then it’s just a not guilty verdict, not jury nullification. For it to be jury nullification, the jury has to think the defendant is guilty.
Neither does US recognize it as a right. No matter whether you believe jury nullification is a perversion of justice or irreplaceable bulwark against tyranny, it’s origin can’t be disputed. Jury nullification is not a right that was ever recognized explicitly, but an unintended side-effect of other rights (right to jury trial and jury verdicts being final).
What the fuck. How did journalism get this utterly fucked?
No, there is no “may”! It is jury nullification only when the jury believes the defendant committed a crime. There is no “may” about it.
Fucking so afraid to actually write something they will insert this uncertain language everywhere to the point it doesn’t even make sense.
What is the point in reading your article, when even you don’t seem to believe what you are writing is correct?!
journalists tow the line.
if they stray from the path, they know they’ll get fired in an instant, and theres no qualms about firing them because there’s a hundred hungry replacements in the wings.
Yeah, the “may” totally changes it. If the jury thinks the defendant is not guilty, then it’s just a not guilty verdict, not jury nullification. For it to be jury nullification, the jury has to think the defendant is guilty.
“Phenomenon called Jury Nullification.”
Disgusting langauge, it makes it sound like a newfangled perversion of the justice system instead of an actual right that people have.
Here’s the thing: this is an Indian article and they specifically don’t have jury trials or nullification as a right.
Neither does US recognize it as a right. No matter whether you believe jury nullification is a perversion of justice or irreplaceable bulwark against tyranny, it’s origin can’t be disputed. Jury nullification is not a right that was ever recognized explicitly, but an unintended side-effect of other rights (right to jury trial and jury verdicts being final).
The Constitution says that it is not spelling out all the rights just the ones that it has listed.
And those rights are human rights. They are not granted by the Constitution but merely recognized in a document.
Wake up. A piece of parchment did not create human rights. They exist because we are humans.
It kind of does. It says “By a trial jury of your peers”, which implies, more or less, the jury of your peers are the final arbiter.