hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Sparked by a thread on ARFCOM (yeah, how logical).
Some debated they don't believe juries have the right, but IMO you must argue they do! If you believe in the "better judged by 12 than carried by 6 mantra" - how could you argue against the right to nullify laws from the jury box? A lot of states are backwards in their rights to defend yourself, the right to own firearms, ect. If you were on a jury in NYC and someone was on trial for using an "illegal gun" to protect themselves, could you convict even though the law is unjust and goes against the natural rights of the individual?
For those who don't know what Jury Nullification is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Sparked by a thread on ARFCOM (yeah, how logical).
Some debated they don't believe juries have the right, but IMO you must argue they do! If you believe in the "better judged by 12 than carried by 6 mantra" - how could you argue against the right to nullify laws from the jury box? A lot of states are backwards in their rights to defend yourself, the right to own firearms, ect. If you were on a jury in NYC and someone was on trial for using an "illegal gun" to protect themselves, could you convict even though the law is unjust and goes against the natural rights of the individual?
For those who don't know what Jury Nullification is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification