• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -85 hours ago

    Well, to your first point, jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict. Obviously if they could the whole system breaks down. Jurors can exploit this protection to return a false verdict with impunity, but it is exactly that - false testament. Others will try to say that jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal system but IMO it’s just exploiting a limitation.

    Secondly, you’re not talking about an unfair law, you’re talking about an unjust outcome. All laws will produce unjust outcomes in some specific circumstances. However a law against murder reduces more harm than it causes, so it’s worth upholding.

    To me, the idea of having juries decide to set aside the law in cases they feel are unjust is an absurdity. Imagine if Trump were on trial and the jury unanimously returned not-guilty despite obvious guilt.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 hours ago

      To be fair, both Biden and Trump set aside the law by not actually banning TikTok, so it makes sense that at least in some specific instances, normal people are allowed to as well.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -54 hours ago

        No, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

        Presidents are elected to weird ultimate power, and are intended to do so with the support of the best advice available.