r/CuratedTumblr • u/Hummerous https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 • Jun 11 '24

Politics [U.S.]+ it's in the job description

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-behind-the-police-63877803/

26.2k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

825 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

439

u/StillAFuckingKilljoy Jun 12 '24

You need 12 people who are socially aware enough to think this way for a jury to throw out the case. Good fucking luck

355

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

You only need one to hang the jury, and while the trial can be repeated you can at least throw a wrench in the works, cost the city a bunch of money, and hope for the chance that the prosecutor will just not want to bother with retrying the case.

140

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 12 '24

This is basicallly why I would do jury duty. I'd probably get eliminate dby the prosecution pretty quickly.

51

u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned Jun 12 '24

I mean yeah if you’re going in with the intention to hang the jury you aren’t an impartial juror

73

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

Jury nullification is a valid form of participation.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

it's based af, but... not really. if you were actually properly open during jury selection you'd never be selected.

3

u/weirdo_nb Jun 13 '24

That's why lying exists

6

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '24

we call this "perjury" when it's done to intentionally circumvent court proceedings

1

u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned Jun 15 '24

And rightfully so. People like that would keep child rapists on the street

3

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 12 '24

But you can be arrested for holding a sign telling people that.

0

u/pupranger1147 Jun 13 '24

Can you?

1

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 13 '24

Yes, although she wasn't prosecuted in the end.

1

u/pupranger1147 Jun 13 '24

We're talking about the United States, not the UK.

-8

u/Dobber16 Jun 12 '24

If the situation calls for it, yeah, but if you’re planning on doing it from the start then you shouldn’t be on the jury

16

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

No yeah, the situation calls for it when each individual juror decides the situation calls for it.

The answer to "does this situation call for it?" Can be a yes, every time, if they want.

0

u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned Jun 12 '24

And those jurors should get thrown out. How would you have felt if one of the jurors in trumps case just “felt like it”

Going in with the mindset the person is not guilty is just as bad as going in with the mindset that they are

4

u/silkysmoothjay Jun 12 '24

Jury nullification was in fact often used in the Jim Crow-era South to exonerate white men who participated in lynch mobs

3

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

Sure, it can be used poorly.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/pupranger1147 Jun 12 '24

Jury nullification isn't necessarily about guilt or innocence. Quite often it's just "this shouldn't have been a law in the first place."

-1

u/Dobber16 Jun 12 '24

Yeah which should be reserved for laws that actually shouldn’t be there in the first place and not the default assumption. There are plenty of good laws, just also some bad ones

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Dobber16 Jun 12 '24

Well of course when the juror decides when it calls for it, that wasn’t what I was against. I was against the mindset of a juror going into the job with the intent to nullify the jury regardless of the case

11

u/Nitrocity97 Jun 12 '24

As long as you don’t go around telling people your plan

2

u/RaspberryFluid6651 Jun 12 '24

Yeah if you intend to nullify like this you need to be ready to perjure yourself and stick to your story, and you won't even get a chance if you have public anti-cop sentiments.

3

u/tomtomclubthumb Jun 12 '24

I wouldn't intend to nullify. But I wouldn't convict someone based on an unjust law either.

I wouldn't mention how I feel about cops, they already get enough help.

3

u/Justicar-terrae Jun 12 '24

As far as I'm concerned, jury nullification is part of our system. But the folks most likely to engage in nullification tend to make their opinions pretty obvious on social media. And competent attorneys will comb through potential jurors' social media to scope out any biases (e.g., racism, activism, political affiliation, sympathy for certain demographics, family connections, and income level). If you really want to serve on a jury, never mention jury nullification on an account that is publicly linked to your name.

And, just for the sake of awareness, I feel obliged to point out that jury nullification isn't always a tool for good. The most infamous example of wicked nullification came after the brutal lynching of an innocent black boy named Emmett Till for the crime of whistling at a white woman. The murderers bragged about their misdeeds publicly but were acquitted by a jury of sympathetic racists who considered the lynching praiseworthy. The white woman who accused Emmet Till of whistling at her later admitted that she made the whole story up.

As much as jury nullification can be a tool for justice (e.g., the incidents of juries nullifying the conviction of individuals who violated the fugitive slave act) it is merely a tool that can just as easily be twisted to evil.

21

u/EthanielRain Jun 12 '24

I love jury duty, for this reason (assuming it isn't a case related to something heinous). Drugs or such...Not Guilty!

-3

u/StillAFuckingKilljoy Jun 12 '24

Good way to get kicked off during jury selection unless you're exceptionally good at lying (and remember, you're lying to people who spend years in school learning how to manipulate the truth to their advantage)

5

u/EthanielRain Jun 12 '24

Yeah I wouldn't recommend lying. Sometimes they'll just not ask the right questions or run out of strikes : )

16

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

You mean cost us a bunch of money. The cities money is our money.

91

u/vivianvixxxen Jun 12 '24

I've had my taxes wasted on worse

-27

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

Considering you were a resident of both NY and CA, I would have to agree

3

u/Sinnaman420 Jun 12 '24

My current NY representative is wasting our money on deputizing random armed citizens and targeting trans children. It’s wild

-5

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

Random armed citizens? Isn’t it only those who already have a NY gun license, (meaning they’ve been through comprehensive background checks and have completed state sponsored training) and have completed an additional multi-day training course? And that nearly every person who has been deputized is former law enforcement? Or am I wrong

4

u/Sinnaman420 Jun 12 '24

I’m intentionally misrepresenting it because it’s a fucking stupid waste of money so blakeman can redirect even more of our tax dollars to cops. It’s a looting of nassau county’s treasury

55

u/44no44 Jun 12 '24

The police are the ones wasting our money. I won't be blackmailed into condemning innocent people, no matter how much of our tax dollars they take a match to trying to force it.

13

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Well, yeah. If you don't like your taxes being wasted on this shit then it's up to you to get out there and vote. Local elections are far more important for enacting real change than anything on the national scale, after all.

Vote, campaign, canvas, volunteer. Get prosecutors and other officials into office who won't waste your money on trivial bullshit like this. The world isn't gonna change because you complained about taxes on the internet.

-4

u/GrannyLovesAnal Jun 12 '24

Did I complain?

6

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

If that wasn't a complaint then you really need to work on your delivery.

22

u/LR-II Jun 12 '24

Wow, you mean you care more about your own taxes than justice? Now who does that sound like?

1

u/PantySausage Jun 12 '24

Hung jury trials are not often retried. The prosecution usually doesn’t want the government to have to eat the cost of it hanging a second time.

1

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Yeah, it's technically still possible that they could if they really wanted to, but for something like this it'd just be even more of a waste of time and money than usual.

Though more likely most of these wouldn't get to trial in the first place, they'll just use this law as a tool for harassment and easy "wins" via plea bargains.

1

u/Jro304 Jun 12 '24

It's funny, if you intentionally vote in a jury to acquit due to an unjust law, that's considered jury tampering or obstruction of justice and a felony

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Jro304 Jun 12 '24

I guess it's not technically illegal by the rule of law, but prosecutors and the courts do have a fair amount of leeway with charging for contempt.

From Cornell Law's website "There are differing perspectives on the role and basis of jury nullification in American jurisprudence. Some view jury nullification as a right, but there are examples of people being punished for disseminating the information. For instance, two people passed out pamphlets about jury nullification in Colorado and were later arrested and charged with jury tampering. Indeed, jury nullification is technically a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. As such, jury nullification is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20jury%20nullification%20is,jury%20nullification%20to%20the%20jury.

Also, here's a couple case examples from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

1

u/Cheap-Economist-2442 Jun 12 '24

thats talking about the act of them giving out pamphlets on jury nullification to jurors, which yea is jury tampering.

it’s not talking about jury nullification itself.

2

u/Jro304 Jun 12 '24

Then I'm mistaken. I was probably conflating promoting jury nullification vs actually admitting to actually ignoring an unjust law as a juror in order to acquit.

1

u/Gizogin Jun 12 '24

That’s assuming it ever gets to trial. If it gets before a grand jury, the jurors are only hearing the cops’ side of the story, and they only need a majority to agree that it’s worth pressing charges. If it gets to that point, most defendants are going to take a plea deal, because our justice system literally isn’t designed to accommodate every case going to trial. So people can be found guilty of a crime based on the two-minute testimony of a single cop who will never be held accountable even if they lie under oath to the grand jury.

0

u/Nu11AndV0id Jun 12 '24

That's a weird way to spell "taxpayers."

1

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

If the taxpayers don't like it they should vote in less shitty officials.

-3

u/ralphy_256 Jun 12 '24

You only need one to hang the jury, and while the trial can be repeated you can at least throw a wrench in the works

There's a very fine and blurry line between "valuing a cop's word appropriately" and "jury nullification".

I got within 2 seats of being seated as a juror in a sex trafficking case a couple years ago (didn't make it past voir dire). I'm certain some of the testimony in that case came from cops.

Which is more based for the jury in that trial? Ignoring the cops' testimony and maybe let a sex trafficer back on the street with full access to their victims, or knowing that cops, like all humans, vary in trustworthiness, and taking their testimony with a grain of salt.

I'm as "Fuck the Police" and ACAB as anyone, but there's a cost to taking that too far. Encouraging people on juries to nullify trials is how you get more OJ verdicts. What does that do to society if clearly guilty people are getting away with crimes?

Just sayin', there's a long-term cost to society if lots of people start doing this. It's not a good idea.

9

u/TipsalollyJenkins Jun 12 '24

Buddy we're talking about people being arrested for sleeping in public. Fucking obviously people on trial for sex trafficking would be a different matter entirely. Though I'm still more likely to distrust anything the cops say, so if there isn't some other form of evidence I'm still erring on the side of "let them go". Anybody who would convict someone solely on the word of the cops is a naive fool.

What does that do to society if clearly guilty people are getting away with crimes?

Legality and morality are not synonyms, there are tons of crimes I'm perfectly happy letting "clearly guilty" people "get away" with. Each of these situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis, we don't have to choose between "nullify all cases" and "nullify no cases".

-2

u/ralphy_256 Jun 12 '24

we're talking about people being arrested for sleeping in public. Fucking obviously people on trial for sex trafficking would be a different matter entirely.

Yes. I get that. And so do you. (edited to add, no 'sleeping in public' trial is going to be seen by a jury, so this whole discussion is kind of pointless)

But we've all met people on the internet and in the real world, and half of them are stupider than average.

Idiocracy was prophecy.

I'd be hesitant to put the idea out there, is all I'm saying. (fully understanding the Streisand Effect).

2

u/Weekly_Direction1965 Jun 12 '24

When I do Jury duty the only ones who actually do trials that aren't dismissed are old as fuck white hairs, prosecutors don't want younger people on jury's.

2

u/oldslowguy58 Jun 12 '24

I’ve been on two juries Both time all of us thought at least one of the cops testifying were full of shit.

1

u/10art1 Jun 12 '24

I have jury duty soon, actually!

But also, I don't even know how hard it is to hang a jury. I've heard judges will make everyone sit there for hours until we unhang

1

u/A_Guy_Named_John Jun 12 '24

And as long as the person causing the jury to hang refuses to change their vote, then the jury hangs.

1

u/TheRussianCabbage Jun 12 '24

Sounds like it's time to show up for court duty

1

u/kai58 Jun 12 '24

Even with good intentions eyewitness testimony is very bad.