Libertarianism and Jury Duty

[SteveS]

I started this under the "politics" thread because it seemed most apropos.

Intro - I consider myself basically libertarian.  I'm not a member of the political party of the same name;  just somebody who agrees for the most part with the philosophy.

So, to get on with it:  it finally happened to me - I've received a summons for jury duty.  I had a work conflict with the date, so I requested and received a deferment, but it looks like I'm going to end up as a candidate for some poor bastard's trial (wonder how they'd feel about me being on the jury if they knew I was an atheist?  If they knew I was a libertarian?  Maybe I should offer this up as information about me to keep everything fair?)

Anyway - libertarians are sort of like governmental atheists, right?  Don't believe in the system, that sort of thing.  And, I've got plenty to bitch about the summons - they didn't ask me if I'd consider volunteering for jury duty, they sent me a court summons and explained that if I didn't show up a sanction would apply (namely, I'd be held in contempt of court - but I'm already in contempt of the court philosophically    ).  Or, when they ask if anyone feels they should not serve, should I offer up that my personal philosophy tells me that nobody should be in a position of authority over anyone else, and that I cannot in good conscience decide the fate of another human being?  But, on the other hand, I'm not really sure that's true about me.

If there are any other libertarians out there, what's your take on jury duty?  Should I refuse to vote in the jury room (that would fun  :wink:  )?  Or, recognizing that the libertarian philosophy is largely ideal, and recognizing that the philosophy would require some measures to be taken if a person's rights were violated, should I get on board and quit complaining?  A trial by jury seems to be as fair as any other way to decide whether a person's rights were violated and what should be done if they were.  Should I appeal to pragmatism and just do my civic duty?  I will surely answer the summons - but this is simply because I don't wish to feel the sting of the sanction.

I can offer up that if the case is a traffic violation I would be a terrible juror for the prosecution --- if someone didn't wear their seatbelt or didn't come to a complete stop, I'd vote "not guilty" whatever the judge's instructions are because these are B.S. laws --- whose rights were violated by the accused, even if he/she did commit the actions charged against him/her?  I think this would qualify as "jury nullification", and I think this was specifically allowed for by Thomas Jefferson.  Come to think of it, there are plenty of laws I wouldn't hesitate to "nullify".

Just curious how others regard the situation?  If you are not a libertarian, please feel free to tell me why I'm crazy and should just play along.  You won't hurt my feelings    .

[donkeyhoty]

Ignoring all the libertarian stuff for now;  If you get selected, when they do the voie dire(ask you shit), just tell them you know what "jury nullification" is.  If you don't, look it up.  If the prosecutor doesn't excuse you immediately, they aren't very good at their job.

Also, I had to go a few weeks ago and never even got selected.  There were about 100 of us, and they only did one case the whole day.  They only talked to about 40 people.  If the court in your area is as inefficient as mine, and it surely is, you'll be fine playing the odds.

[MommaSquid]

SteveS, it's like we're riding a tandem bike!  I got called for jury duty in July, but since I was recovering from surgery, I requested and was granted a 90 day delay.  I have to report on 10/11 and I'm trying to figure out what to say to get out of serving on a jury.  

Just showing up for my summons is going to be a big enough pain in the ass!  I have to be at the courthouse by 8 am, which means I have to get up around 5 am, get ready, drive into the city during rush hour traffic,  find the parking garage, take the shuttle to the courthouse, and then try to stay awake while waiting my turn.

I'm a Libertarian and an atheist, I whole-heartedly believe in jury nullification, and would pretty much vote in whatever manner got me out of the jury room fastest.  If I think, hmmm...this guy's not guilty, but the rest of the jury says 'guilty', I'm not going to waste my time and energy trying to convince them otherwise.  Guilty it is...can I go home now?

The other thing that irks me about jury duty is the fact that I am not allowed to carry a weapon.  I have a concealed carry permit and usually carry a small handgun and pepper spray in my purse when I go into the city.  But the summons clearly states that these items are verboten.  So I have a few choices:  (1) don't go and risk getting arrested and fined, (2) go with my weapon of choice and risk getting arrested and fined, (3) go without weapons and risk getting attacked and having no means of protection.  These choices all suck!

Jury duty is like being drafted for the day.

[Will]

LOL at the bringing up of Jury Nullification. I usually wait until long after I'm selected to let that tidbit slide during deliberation. I support nullification because it allows justice to take precedence over the law.

[rlrose328]

Okay, I just looked up Jury Nullification and I'm perplexed.  Would you do this in any trial in which you're called to serve, regardless of the law or just in a trial with which you disagree with the charges?

I'm not a libertarian... I thought I was when I was younger, but over the years, I just don't agree with many of their stances.  I believe government is necessary because the masses will never behave without some form of police and court.  I agree that the way things are set up now (and likely to never change) is not perfect, but we have to operate within the law and the courts or else we'll have anarchy.  As a punk in college, I was all for anarchy... but now I'm an adult and I don't much care for the idea.

So please help me understand... why would you "believe" in jury nullification?

[SteveS]

Thanks for the response so far, guys and gals.

Hey donkeyhoty,

If you get selected, when they do the voie dire(ask you shit), just tell them you know what "jury nullification" is. If you don't, look it up. If the prosecutor doesn't excuse you immediately, they aren't very good at their job.

Indeed - I am in fact familiar with "jury nullification".  This is sound, useful, and honest advice.  I sincerely thank you!

Hey MommaSquid,

Just showing up for my summons is going to be a big enough pain in the ass!

Don't I know it!  I'm thinking I'm going to have to catch the first train of the day, transfer to the L at Union Station or walk (depending on weather), all to avoid having to park my car downtown (Chicago).  Anyway, if public transport is available, I would always use it anyway.  I hate needless driving and parking.

Regarding the jury vote in the situation you describe, I don't think I'd change my vote.  I wouldn't necessarily argue that the other jurors should change theirs, but I would argue why I would not change mine (damned individualist  :wink:  ).  If neither of us would change, then I would submit that the jury had become helplessly deadlocked.  I understand the "expediency theory" - but I guess I like to argue ( :wink: ), so I'd stick it out and stand my ground.

the summons clearly states that these items are verboten

Nice choice of words!  Ich verstehe Sie!

Concealed carry is mostly unavailable in Illinois, and I believe particularly so in the city of Chicago.  But it doesn't matter for me because I don't own a gun - I'm not morally opposed to it or anything, just don't.  If, however, this is legal in your area, then I don't understand why they wouldn't let you check your weapons at the front door?  Seems incomprehensible to me.  Anyway, the area of Chicago I'm going to is reasonably safe, so I'll trust in my physical fitness and strength to defend my person (I'm reasonably fit, and reasonably strong, just nothing like an ultimate badass or anything though).  So then luckily, in my case, I don't view the commute as an undue risk to my personal safety.  But I still think its B.S. that they won't let you check your gun & pepper spray.  Not having them in the court is one thing, but getting to and fro?  Seems acceptable to me  :?  

Hey rlrose328,

So please help me understand... why would you "believe" in jury nullification?

I believe I can answer this.  To me, jury nullification is the idea that the jury finds the law in question to be unjust.  The prosecution has proven that the defendant has violated the law, the judge has instructed that you must not decide whether or not you agree with the law but must instead only decide whether or not the prosecution's case is valid;  but jury nullification allows the jury to say "I understand the law, I understand the prosecution's case and agree that the defendant violated the law,  but I do not accept the judge's instruction and will vote not guilty because the law is unjust".  This effectively "nullifies" the law --- if jurys will not convict persons charged with breaking it, the law has no power.

Here's a contrived example: a racist state passes a law that it is illegal for people of a particular race to go shopping on sunday.  The prosecutor drags in an accused of the targeted race and presents compelling evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was indeed shopping on the forbidden day and is of the targeted race.  The judge then tells me "Mr. Juror, it is not yours to decide whether or not you agree with this law, but merely to decide whether or not this person violated it".  Although it is clear to me what the law means and that this individual broke this law, I vote "not guilty" anyway because I believe the law to be unjust --- the jury trial in this manner can stand as the final check against a tyrannical state.  While this example is extreme, it is possible because we only elect representatives --- once in office they don't tend to check with us on the laws they are passing.  So its entirely possible for an elected representation to enact a law that I find unjust --- jury nullification is my civil means of fighting back.

So I would do this only in a case where I felt the law was unjust - not any old case.  To object to any old case I would have to invoke my libertarian leanings --- although in all fairness, I am something of a pragmatist as well as an idealist (I'm not completely one or the other I guess), so I'm not at all sure I'm comfortable with tanking any and all trials on the basis of my libertarianism.  The philosophy, in this regard, is too idealistic to be practical (at least at this point in history) to me.  I would prefer to use it more as a "guideline" to help me determine which laws are just and which are unjust.  I see my libertarianism more as a method of guiding and living in our society -- not necessarily as a complete rejection of our society.  I'd rather see society change than be completely disbanded.  This is why I say I'm basically libertarian.  George Smith would probably despise me for saying this!

Clear as mud, right?

[donkeyhoty]

why would you "believe" in jury nullification?

We don't need to believe in it.  It actually exists.

But, in extension of what Steve said, jury nullification is simply one of the checks and balances.  Since, supposedly, the people run this country we get to decide if a law made by our appointed representatives is in opposition to our beliefs, or the punishment for a crime is in stark contrast to the severity of the crime.  And here's the kicker, as another check on the people's power, neither judge nor attorneys are allowed to inform the jury of this power... unless someone asks.

Some historical examples: Northern juries refusing to convict for Fugitive Slave Act transgressions, and refusals to convict for Prohibition violations.  Not that all, or any, of these juries knew about jury nullification, but they voted for acquittal because they felt the laws and punishments were either reprehensible or absurd.

[MommaSquid]

As far as jury nullification goes, if people disagree with the law or the way the law is being applied in a particular case, then we have the right to thumb our noses at the judge's instructions.  

Regarding the jury vote in the situation you describe, I don't think I'd change my vote.

In all actuality, I probably wouldn't change my vote either, although I'd be tempted to just to get the heck out of the jury room.  

…But I still think its B.S. that they won't let you check your gun & pepper spray.  Not having them in the court is one thing, but getting to and fro?  Seems acceptable to me  :?  

Absolutely! The law in AZ allows me to carry concealed but doesn’t address where to store my weapon if I’m going somewhere that won’t allow my gun in the door.  I’m sure as heck not leaving it in my car all day!

[SteveS]

Some historical examples: Northern juries refusing to convict for Fugitive Slave Act transgressions, and refusals to convict for Prohibition violations. Not that all, or any, of these juries knew about jury nullification, but they voted for acquittal because they felt the laws and punishments were either reprehensible or absurd.

Indeed!  Worthy acts, IMHO.  Especially that prohibition bit  :wink:  

And here's the kicker, as another check on the people's power, neither judge nor attorneys are allowed to inform the jury of this power... unless someone asks.

Since you phrased this as a "check on the people's power", I infer that you are dissatisfied with the status quo.  I am a fellow dissenter.  Moreover, it seems to me that this topic is a sore spot among the legally inclined (law professors and such) - my internet roamings have led me across several essays written on the topic, and disagreement seems strong.

Personally, I think the tribunal should inform the jurors about jury nullification, but I don't hold any hope that it ever will.  Asking the judge to do this is effectively asking him to allow you to consider de-powering the entire government, executive legislative and judicial, in one fell swoop.  What government would ever willingly surrender its own authority?  Not even the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" will do that.

Man - see what I mean?  Sarcastic, subversive, vitriolic --- I'm just plain grouchy lately!  Maybe I'm not getting enough endorphines - better get back on my elliptical machine or something  :?

[rlrose328]

Thanks for the response so far, guys and gals.

(((Snip perfect description and illustration of jury nullification)))

Clear as mud, right?

Actually, you explained it perfectly.  Wiki didn't explain it quite that well.  Thank you very much, your example is perfect to explain the law.  I do believe I would do the same in that example.  I'm glad to know there's a term for doing that and yes, I do believe in that as well.

I love learning new things!!!

[rlrose328]

why would you "believe" in jury nullification?

We don't need to believe in it.  It actually exists.

LOL!!     I KNEW some smart-ass would say that.

So... they don't have to tell you as a jury member that you can vote note guilty if you don't think the law is constitutional or sound, but if you say you firmly support jury nullification, chances are any lawyer worth his penny loafers will dismiss you just because of they're afraid of you?

[SteveS]

So... they don't have to tell you as a jury member that you can vote note guilty if you don't think the law is constitutional or sound, but if you say you firmly support jury nullification, chances are any lawyer worth his penny loafers will dismiss you just because of they're afraid of you?

Precisely!  As well they should be afraid.  Consider the prospects from the prosecutors point of view:  if you were trying to convict a person of a crime, and one of the members of the jury (who gets to vote) proclaims that they believe the entire sum of evidence and argumentation would be irrelevant if the law in question is found wanting, then nothing they say or do can win the case for them --- so its something of a no-brainer to get rid of people who think like that.  They can sink your entire case no matter what action you take!  The prosecutor must convince everyone - the defense only has to swing one juror and they can get a mistrial.

Also, the law doesn't have to be unconstitutional - it just has to be unjust.  There is a slight but meaningful difference  :wink:  .

A more disturbing question would be why they are attempting to convict somebody for breaking an unjust law?  My cynical answer is that the prosecution (and defense for that matter) are primarily concerned with winning the case at hand --- they are not primarily concerned with ensuring that justice is served.  Presumably this is why they don't get to vote  :wink:  .  The prosecution would always vote "guilty" and the defense would always vote "not guilty" irregardless of the law in question or the evidence at hand.

[SteveS]

Wow, I was re-reading this thread, and I originally missed Willravel's comment:

I support nullification because it allows justice to take precedence over the law.

How did I miss this?  This was a perfect way of phrasing the issue!  And, I could not agree with the sentiment more strongly.

[rlrose328]

Of COURSE they primarily want to win the case!  It's another notch on their belt.  Whether private practice (where they want to be a partner someday) or county attorney (where they want to be DA someday), each win is important to a career.  I'm sure there ARE exceptions... there are tree-hugger lawyers (and I do mean that in a merely descriptive way, not derogatory) who truly believe in their clients and the cases, but they far and few between.

Now... what if you go for jury duty (can't get out of it legitimately and are forced to appear) and you truly feel the law involved is unjust or unconstitutional... would you keep the jury  nullification thing to yourself and sacrifice your life for a few weeks just to nullify the trial?  Or just use it as a means to not serve?  What's the point of having such a means of disagreeing with the law if you never serve?

[SteveS]

Now... what if you go for jury duty (can't get out of it legitimately and are forced to appear) and you truly feel the law involved is unjust or unconstitutional... would you keep the jury nullification thing to yourself and sacrifice your life for a few weeks just to nullify the trial? Or just use it as a means to not serve? What's the point of having such a means of disagreeing with the law if you never serve?

A shrewd and totally reasonable question; I was wondering about this exact same thing myself.  Here's my game plan (keeping in mind that a coworker recently went to jury service and the judge was able to tell them how long he expected the trial to go):

If the trial is expected to be lengthy, then I will beg off service on the grounds that my absence will be far too disruptive to my business.  This is not a lie or exaggeration of any kind (all this and humble too  :wink:  ).  If they refuse, then I'll lay the nullification tidbit on the table to try to get excused.  If that doesn't work either, then, I have no idea.  Maybe I'll just start showing up drunk until they kick me out!  (hic) scuse' me ya honor, I have to (hic) use the westwoom agin (hic)

If the trial will be short (week, 7 days, something similar), and I'm selected then I'll serve.  I will adopt Willravel's strategy and keep the "nullification" idea to myself unless needed.  If the law seems just, I'll vote my mind on whether or not the prosecution made their case.  If the law seems unjust or "victimless" (without a victim, how can there be a crime?), then I'll vote "not guilty".  If the other jurors want to vote guilty and demand a reason for my behavior, I will explain the nullification concept to them.  If they become derisive or abusive, I will accuse them of being good little Nazis and began goose-stepping around the room, alternating cries of "Heil Hitler" with bronx cheers, until they agree to submit a hung jury notification to the judge.

P.S.
I'm doing something right, I'm getting over my grouchiness - my lighthearted nature is reasserting itself!  You folks make for wonderful therapy - I thank you all!