• edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        How would you even punish jurors for that? Someone else (the judge I guess) would have to decide that their decision was “wrong”, and at that point why even have jurors?

        • SeekTheDeletion [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          2 months ago

          As long as the juror doesn’t mention they are doing nullification they can get away with it. They just have to play dumb and keep repeating truisms over and over about how they aren’t convinced by the evidence

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 months ago

      For a much longer time period it was actually because the state was just releasing members. They did not want to prosecute and open up weapons companies to the “discovery” phase of court trials.

    • LanyrdSkynrd [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      They have a stronger version than the US because lawyers can argue for it to the jury. In the US they aren’t allowed to do it, and most states have model jury instructions that tell them they are not allowed to ignore the law because they think it unjust.

      • SeekTheDeletion [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not only can the defense not mention it, nobody can. It will get you thrown off the jury instantly and the entire thing declared a mistrial, redone without you.

        There was one guy who kept protesting outside courthouses to tell jurors about jury nullification and he had been harassed and arrested dozens of times.