I wish jurors would understand their role is to protect the innocent from prosecutorial overreach, not rubber-stamp the prosecution's assertion that a law has been broken. They have more power than the judge (who is really just supposed to enforce procedural rules and maintain order) because they can vote against the law! Imagine, a jury filled with jurors who know that:
A) They can't be punished for their verdict
B) They can, and should, consider the rule of law, and not just the veracity of the evidence as is often directed by the judge
C) They have the authority to say "okay, the evidence shows the defendant is guilty, but we don't think the law is a just one, so we're going to acquit."
Sometimes, that power is used for good (not convicting those who helped runaway slaves, for example, or not convicting minor drug offenses, keeping our disgustingly overcrowded county jails from adding to their rolls) and sometimes not (the officers acquitted despite video evidence of their beating Rodney King).
It is, however, an exemplar of the checks-and-balances meant to constrain a government that may otherwise overstep its boundaries to violate a citizen's rights. While the rights afforded to a jury are in danger of changing, they haven't changed yet, and potential jurors everywhere in the US should read up more on their rights and responsibilities as a juror.
Hacker Cinema
1 comment on Hacker News
I wish jurors would understand their role is to protect the innocent from prosecutorial overreach, not rubber-stamp the prosecution's assertion that a law has been broken. They have more power than the judge (who is really just supposed to enforce procedural rules and maintain order) because they can vote against the law! Imagine, a jury filled with jurors who know that:
A) They can't be punished for their verdict B) They can, and should, consider the rule of law, and not just the veracity of the evidence as is often directed by the judge C) They have the authority to say "okay, the evidence shows the defendant is guilty, but we don't think the law is a just one, so we're going to acquit."
Sometimes, that power is used for good (not convicting those who helped runaway slaves, for example, or not convicting minor drug offenses, keeping our disgustingly overcrowded county jails from adding to their rolls) and sometimes not (the officers acquitted despite video evidence of their beating Rodney King).
It is, however, an exemplar of the checks-and-balances meant to constrain a government that may otherwise overstep its boundaries to violate a citizen's rights. While the rights afforded to a jury are in danger of changing, they haven't changed yet, and potential jurors everywhere in the US should read up more on their rights and responsibilities as a juror.