This is truly a majestic page… kept me smiling till i had to very unwillingly click stumble again.. great work admin… beautiful articles..
cant wait for more.!
As an American, I can assure you that juries cannot nullify a law by ignoring it. Juries can only decide if a defendant is guilty or not guilty and a punishment to be approved by the judge. Saying a defendant is not guilty (by not finding evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or the lack of a perpondereance of the evidence depending on type of crime in question) is in know way ignoring the law, just saying that they do not believe the defendant committed the crime.
Judges can overturn laws that they feel are in violation of the United States Constitution, however, these are almost always appealed and sent to a high court for a second look. This is know as Judaical Review.
Just so you guys know we are not anarchists who can dismiss the law from within the legal system.
As an American you need to educate yourself a little more. Jury nullification isn’t ignoring facts and declaring not guilty. It is an acquittal for persons who are technically guilty of the charges against them but do not deserve punishment. For example, charging a medical marijuana patient with possession. And yes, it is provided for by the constitution.
Actually, the original corrector is correct. The “fact” above is incorrect. The jury can’t “nullify a law”. As you all are stating above, they can nullify the charges and set the defendant free… that doesn’t “nullify they law” however. The law is still a valid law.
The statement above by Nichole is true. If you need credentials to believe me I am a 3L law student at a tier 1 law school in the U.S. “Jury nullification” is a term that means that the jury ignored the law and found the defendant not guilty because they disagreed with it. However, they must find that the defendant did not commit the crime. They find the facts. They don’t decide the law, that is for the legislature and courts to decide. Also, the jury doesn’t decide a sentence (other than in death penalty cases and a very few other cases). They merely find if the defendant is guilty or not. A judge decides the sentence in a separate (normally) hearing. ……Boom goes the dynamite!
Actually they can. In high school I was on the speech and debate team for Deming High School and I was in the Lincoln Douglas event and my senior year topic was “Should a jury have the power to nullify the case for a defendant”. A jury does have the power to nullify, what it truly means is that the jury can find them not guilty even if all evidence points that they are guilty. Example: A mother kills the man who raped and killed her daughter. If all evidence points to her being guilty the jury can find her not guilty for obvious reasons.
Thanks, I want you to know how much I was worried about that. I lost sleep over it! I mean, really! I’d toss and turn every night wondering if those wacky Americans had that much power over their own laws. Surely, that factoid might have been the death of me! I might have died after years of confusion and the low quality of life that comes with an unsolved mystery such as this. If you think about it, my life was always in YOUR hands. Without you, I might have fret about it for years, slowly spinning in to madness. Then YOU came along and made the world make sense again! Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I wish I could hug your brain. You must number among the smarter Americans. One day I hope to travel there, and study under your tutelage, sir. I can’t begin to thank you enough for clarifying that disinformation for me. To think that a jury could do such a thing! I was a mess. A mess I tell you. Up was down. Black was white. Nothing seemed right. But then you, you magnificent genius. You saw fit to share with me your knowledge of the American legal system, which I confess is much too complex for me. I mean, who the hell am I next to you?: My great liberator! Freeing me from a lifetime of wondering if it was true, or not true. I mean thank you! Thank you so very much. What is your name!? I wish to name my first and second born after you!
Actually the poster is right, as an activist I have had to become familiar with this method of changing the laws. In fact it used to be required by law that the judge tell the jury that they have the authority to not just judge whether the offender broke the law, but the merit of the law itself. I cannot remember which law changed that requirement but at this point if a lawyer tries to tell the jury this even though lawyers do learn this, he can be thrown in jail for contempt and the case can be dismissed as a mistrial.
American juries find facts, not the law. They can find that a law was not broken (finding of fact) but they cannot nullify a law by ignoring it!!!! The judge decides the law, jury decides the facts. That statement is a layman’s common mistake.
Thank you for putting some facts that are relevant to current events and not just a bunch of “oh well that’s kind of neat” facts like I usually see when I stumble these pages.
Comments (21)
This is truly a majestic page… kept me smiling till i had to very unwillingly click stumble again.. great work admin… beautiful articles..
cant wait for more.!
About last fact: That wife was probably a bitch
As an American, I can assure you that juries cannot nullify a law by ignoring it. Juries can only decide if a defendant is guilty or not guilty and a punishment to be approved by the judge. Saying a defendant is not guilty (by not finding evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or the lack of a perpondereance of the evidence depending on type of crime in question) is in know way ignoring the law, just saying that they do not believe the defendant committed the crime.
Judges can overturn laws that they feel are in violation of the United States Constitution, however, these are almost always appealed and sent to a high court for a second look. This is know as Judaical Review.
Just so you guys know we are not anarchists who can dismiss the law from within the legal system.
As an American you need to educate yourself a little more. Jury nullification isn’t ignoring facts and declaring not guilty. It is an acquittal for persons who are technically guilty of the charges against them but do not deserve punishment. For example, charging a medical marijuana patient with possession. And yes, it is provided for by the constitution.
thank you for correcting the original corrector!!!!
Actually, the original corrector is correct. The “fact” above is incorrect. The jury can’t “nullify a law”. As you all are stating above, they can nullify the charges and set the defendant free… that doesn’t “nullify they law” however. The law is still a valid law.
The statement above by Nichole is true. If you need credentials to believe me I am a 3L law student at a tier 1 law school in the U.S. “Jury nullification” is a term that means that the jury ignored the law and found the defendant not guilty because they disagreed with it. However, they must find that the defendant did not commit the crime. They find the facts. They don’t decide the law, that is for the legislature and courts to decide. Also, the jury doesn’t decide a sentence (other than in death penalty cases and a very few other cases). They merely find if the defendant is guilty or not. A judge decides the sentence in a separate (normally) hearing. ……Boom goes the dynamite!
Actually they can. In high school I was on the speech and debate team for Deming High School and I was in the Lincoln Douglas event and my senior year topic was “Should a jury have the power to nullify the case for a defendant”. A jury does have the power to nullify, what it truly means is that the jury can find them not guilty even if all evidence points that they are guilty. Example: A mother kills the man who raped and killed her daughter. If all evidence points to her being guilty the jury can find her not guilty for obvious reasons.
Thanks, I want you to know how much I was worried about that. I lost sleep over it! I mean, really! I’d toss and turn every night wondering if those wacky Americans had that much power over their own laws. Surely, that factoid might have been the death of me! I might have died after years of confusion and the low quality of life that comes with an unsolved mystery such as this. If you think about it, my life was always in YOUR hands. Without you, I might have fret about it for years, slowly spinning in to madness. Then YOU came along and made the world make sense again! Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I wish I could hug your brain. You must number among the smarter Americans. One day I hope to travel there, and study under your tutelage, sir. I can’t begin to thank you enough for clarifying that disinformation for me. To think that a jury could do such a thing! I was a mess. A mess I tell you. Up was down. Black was white. Nothing seemed right. But then you, you magnificent genius. You saw fit to share with me your knowledge of the American legal system, which I confess is much too complex for me. I mean, who the hell am I next to you?: My great liberator! Freeing me from a lifetime of wondering if it was true, or not true. I mean thank you! Thank you so very much. What is your name!? I wish to name my first and second born after you!
Actually the poster is right, as an activist I have had to become familiar with this method of changing the laws. In fact it used to be required by law that the judge tell the jury that they have the authority to not just judge whether the offender broke the law, but the merit of the law itself. I cannot remember which law changed that requirement but at this point if a lawyer tries to tell the jury this even though lawyers do learn this, he can be thrown in jail for contempt and the case can be dismissed as a mistrial.
These are great, except for the fact that although still radioactive, researchers can sign a waiver that allows them to handle Marie Curies notebooks.
Super interesting facts especially the ones with the music chills.
Cool list. That’s a smart orangutang.
Pingback: 15 Surprising Facts That You Probably Didn’t Know / Full Punch | TOBOKOZ
marie curie looks like biil murrey
In the 2005 Tour de France Cadel Evans was the first place finisher not to have been linked to drugs in 8th position.
Blood doping has nothing to do with drugs.
Amazing facts! The story about the man who got a heart from a suicide victim is creepy.
American juries find facts, not the law. They can find that a law was not broken (finding of fact) but they cannot nullify a law by ignoring it!!!! The judge decides the law, jury decides the facts. That statement is a layman’s common mistake.
Thank you for putting some facts that are relevant to current events and not just a bunch of “oh well that’s kind of neat” facts like I usually see when I stumble these pages.
Where did you find these facts? The last one seems a bit unlikely.
Half Baked Potatoes