This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
I can see this happening in Australia if the Federal and State Governments keep stalling on legalisation. Juries are able to find someone not guilty not because of the facts of the case, but because the law is unjust. Doesn't happen too often, and I'd imagine any juror who said they knew about nullification would be excused pretty quickly (good way to get out of Jury duty too )
I can't understand why this is allowed, to be honest. Surely the jury's role is to assess the guilt of the defendant, not the merit of the law. Is there any legal precedent for such a thing here?
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
What other recourse would there be against unjust laws? You say you're against many of the more draconian laws made by our Government (sedition etc) but you're saying if you were on a jury you'd convict someone of those offences? Governments around the world make horrendously unjust laws, but they rely on complicit fools to enact them; first police and then juries.
I would've thought you of all people would support a jury finding someone not guilty when the law itself is unjust.
It's not a breach, it's part of the duty of a jury. One that unfortunately isn't advertised or educated. The Jury is the final goal keeper against unjust laws as well as the arbitrator of facts. They're supposed to judge both the law and the facts.
They only decide the facts - they take instruction from the judge as to the content of the law. Of course, juries do bring in perverse verdicts from time to time and we never really know why (because we are not entitled to be told - juries give verdicts, not reasons).
)
