I am going to ignore the moving the goal posts, brah. Because you're the one doing it. The original debate started when I tried to explain the present common law system that we have.
Posted By: ironman1315
Date: Saturday 15 June 2019, at 09:38 pm
You can't seem to accept the fact that juries do not make precedent. The reason why jury nullifcation works is for two reasons, 1) juries can't be punished for getting "the wrong result" and 2) you can't retry or appeal a conviction under. No, juries should not be punished for nullification. Nor do I think nullification should take it away. But nullification has no binding precedential effect. A million juries in a row could declare not guilty verdicts for people clearly guilty of possession statutes, but of the million and first jury convicted the guy, that guy would be guilty and go to prison.
Now, of course, juries do not do nullify very often. One reason is that they are not informed of that ability, nor do they have to be informed. Secondly, they don't because they do not see themselves as lawmakers. But they usually don't have much fear of punishment because, again, no one knows about it, and if they did it there would be no punishment and the prosecution couldn't even threaten punishment.
Now, as for your comment on precedent, you are correct, precedent can be wrong. That is why judges change it. That is why we have a SCOTUS to set precedent and overturn precedent. But, outside the nullfication issue, juries are bound by that law. Judges are bound by that law.
So, let's look at your sodomy claim, the SCOTUS overturned that in, if memory serves, Lawrence v. Texas. So, no prosecutor would be able to bring a sodomy charge as it would be 1) malicious prosecution and subject to fines, sanctions, and loss of a license and 2) would be a loser. Now, should they convict? No, because, again, SCOTUS decision. But they wouldn't have that question presented to them because the judge would dismiss the case, quickly. (And, again, even if the jury nullifies the law a million times, if the law is on the books and not deemed unconstitutional by the Court, that would not change the law. Because the million and first person charged could be convicted under the statute period the end.
Juries in this day and age do not create the law. They are and have been for some time a trier of fact. The judge tells the jury what the law is by way of the jury instructions. The jury then applies the law to the facts presented. That is what they are and have been for centuries, outside the limited use of nullification.
Now, what evidence would I accept otherwise, well any jury decision that had any binding precedent on a similar case following it. Or something in the United States Constitution or a state constitution that would indicate the jury has the authority to create binding precedent. Something, anything, which is what I have been consistently asking for since this whole thing started.
Copyright (C) 1998-2019 Utefans LC. All rights reserved. Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties