Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by neilparikh on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @08:31PM (#3379925)

But then you're bringing opinion into the law. If the jurors on one trial think that 30% isn't fair, but jurors on another trial think that it is fair, you haven't got a fair system anymore. Isn't the law based on justice and fairness?

And this doesn't only apply to tax laws. There could be a difference of opinion on other cases too.

While the law nullification idea is a good idea in theory, it starts to break down in practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by dennisgorelik on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @08:46PM (#3379972)

The whole idea of having jurors is to bring opinion of peers into making judgement about the case.

Of course it's better to make a system that would be consistently fair (e.g. keep taxes at the level vast majority of society supports it). But if two available options are "not fair" and "not always fair" - I'd pick "not always fair".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No by kingkilr on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @11:01PM (#3380309)

The supreme court has in past found that punishments which are capriciously applied are inherently cruel and unusual (Furman v. Georgia).

[ Parent | on HN ]