Jury refuses to convict for marijuana possession

[Chino]

I'm a little late to the party, but here it goes:

If someone is accused of murder, the Jury hears the evidence and determines if the defendant did in fact commit the crime of murder based on the evidence presented to them. The law defines murder very clearly, so it is a pretty clear line. Everyone should agree with that.

The same thing can be said about the marijuana possession charge. The law says a certain amount of possession is illegal, then the Jury must convict (or not) based on the evidence presented to them. That seems pretty clear.

People refusing to convict someone on marijuana possession (based on personal beliefs) when the defendant had obviously broken the law is ridiculous. They honestly should be ashamed of themselves.

Do your damn job, people. Hear the evidence and determine whether or not they broke the law as it is written.

But we are not talking about murder. We are talking about weed. When the majority of the country believes that certain laws are complete bullshit and just a waste of time, money, and resources, we have the right to challenge them. It is our tax dollars funding the DEA and the prisons that hold people violating marijuana laws, we deserve some say in the matter other than just interpreting what some pieces of paper say. What else can the people do to get their point across other than challenge an already corrupt system. In Connecticut, there are laws in affect that state a man can not kiss his wife in public on a Sunday, and you can not cross a street while walking backwards or on your hands. Lets just say hypothetically I was on a jury for a case regarding a man breaking one of those laws. There is no way in hell I am going to even waste my time hearing the case. It is completely absurd and a waste of everyone's time, regardless what paper says.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I'm a little late to the party, but here it goes:

If someone is accused of murder, the Jury hears the evidence and determines if the defendant did in fact commit the crime of murder based on the evidence presented to them. The law defines murder very clearly, so it is a pretty clear line. Everyone should agree with that.

The same thing can be said about the marijuana possession charge. The law says a certain amount of possession is illegal, then the Jury must convict (or not) based on the evidence presented to them. That seems pretty clear.

People refusing to convict someone on marijuana possession (based on personal beliefs) when the defendant had obviously broken the law is ridiculous. They honestly should be ashamed of themselves.

Do your damn job, people. Hear the evidence and determine whether or not they broke the law as it is written.

But we are not talking about murder. We are talking about weed. When the majority of the country believes that certain laws are complete bullshit and just a waste of time, money, and resources, we have the right to challenge them. It is our tax dollars funding the DEA and the prisons that hold people violating marijuana laws, we deserve some say in the matter other than just interpreting what some pieces of paper say. What else can the people do to get their point across other than challenge an already corrupt system. In Connecticut, there are laws in affect that state a man can not kiss his wife in public on a Sunday, and you can not cross a street while walking backwards or on your hands. Lets just say hypothetically I was on a jury for a case regarding a man breaking one of those laws. There is no way in hell I am going to even waste my time hearing the case. It is completely absurd and a waste of everyone's time, regardless what paper says.

I don't think juries are required for those sorts of cases anyway.

Regardless, I agree with RMV that we should be at LEAST respecting the fact that the law is there. But maybe I'm biased because I'm anti-drug. I don't know. I see it more as a 'well, if they can do this for this law, then why not murder, rape, etc'?

[Genowyn]

Because those crimes have victims?

[ResultsMayVary]

I'm a little late to the party, but here it goes:

If someone is accused of murder, the Jury hears the evidence and determines if the defendant did in fact commit the crime of murder based on the evidence presented to them. The law defines murder very clearly, so it is a pretty clear line. Everyone should agree with that.

The same thing can be said about the marijuana possession charge. The law says a certain amount of possession is illegal, then the Jury must convict (or not) based on the evidence presented to them. That seems pretty clear.

People refusing to convict someone on marijuana possession (based on personal beliefs) when the defendant had obviously broken the law is ridiculous. They honestly should be ashamed of themselves.

Do your damn job, people. Hear the evidence and determine whether or not they broke the law as it is written.

But we are not talking about murder. We are talking about weed. When the majority of the country believes that certain laws are complete bullshit and just a waste of time, money, and resources, we have the right to challenge them. It is our tax dollars funding the DEA and the prisons that hold people violating marijuana laws, we deserve some say in the matter other than just interpreting what some pieces of paper say. What else can the people do to get their point across other than challenge an already corrupt system. In Connecticut, there are laws in affect that state a man can not kiss his wife in public on a Sunday, and you can not cross a street while walking backwards or on your hands. Lets just say hypothetically I was on a jury for a case regarding a man breaking one of those laws. There is no way in hell I am going to even waste my time hearing the case. It is completely absurd and a waste of everyone's time, regardless what paper says.

The law is the law. The jury is supposed to convict someone based on what the law says is illegal. If the guy had an illegal amount of weed on him, then he needs to be convicted, end of discussion. To say "the majority of the country believes 'blah blah blah' about weed" is childish. If you want the law changed, then change it. I really don't care if people legalize weed or not, just do your damn job. And it may not be murder, but the same process applies on how to convict every crime, based on the evidence given and what is defined illegal by the law.

Because those crimes have victims?

Possibly, possibly not. But does it matter? What's illegal is illegal. If people want to change the law and make weed legal, then by all means, go for it. As long as it's illegal, juries should do their job and convict people of the crime they committed.

[hefdaddy42]

Please give us your opinion on what juries should have done in the case of laws that were later overturned (such as the Jim Crow Laws).

[orcus116]

The law is the law. The jury is supposed to convict someone based on what the law says is illegal. If the guy had an illegal amount of weed on him, then he needs to be convicted, end of discussion.

Then what's the point of the jury? To be redundant? I mean if the guy clearly had an illegal amount on him then under that line of thinking he will serve a punishment so there's no need for a trial.

[El Barto]

Blind obedience is never a good thing.  Discretion is important, and while the system is rightfully set up so that the courts have specific rules to follow, the jury has to be able to use reasonable judgment to keep things on an even keel.  There's far more to justice than strict adherence to the letter of the law. 

Keep in mind that many instances of jury nullification are demonstrations of compassion; an element that the law often precludes the court from meting out. 

And just to point out that archaic laws do still trample on others, there's this:

In 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.

"Rough Justice," The Economist, July 24th-30th, 2010, p.13

[orcus116]

That is embarrassing.

[bosk1]

Then what's the point of the jury? To be redundant? I mean if the guy clearly had an illegal amount on him then under that line of thinking he will serve a punishment so there's no need for a trial.

To answer your  question, officially, a jury basically has two and only two jobs:
1.  To weigh the evidence and decide the facts.  This is the jury's and only the jury's job.  The jury and only the jury decides what they believe actually happens after hearing all the evidence.  In this case, yes, there probably isn't much for this particular jury to have decided.  Was the guy actually in possession?  I suspect there will not be much dispute.  And I also suspect that there will not be any applicable defenses where they will have to decide whether any facts are true that would serve as the basis for a defense.  But a lot of cases are not so clear cut, so the jury's role in this regard is more difficult and the necessity of having an impartial jury decide the facts is probably more readily apparent.
2.  Applying the facts to the law.  This part of the process is supposed to be almost entirely mechanical.  Once the jury decides what actually happened, they are to apply those facts to the law as stated in the jury instructions and then render their verdict accordingly.  During jury selection (which is apparently the stage in the process at issue in this case), jurors are to state whether or not they feel they actually can carry out that duty regardless of any personal bias they may have relating to either the parties or the law at issue in a particular case.  If they say they can't, the judge is supposed to excuse them.  If their answers to questions may simply imply that they can't or might not, it is up to the attorneys on either side to excuse them.  Simply put, it is a juror's duty and responsibility to follow the law, whether the juror subjectively supports that law or not.  That being said, the system is set up in such a way that a juror who feels as a matter of conscience (or for other reasons) that he or she cannot do so, he or she is to be excused without punishment or retaliation.  Unfortunately, that simply gives an easy out for people to cop out and say they can't do their duty if it conflicts with whatever pet cause of the day strikes their fancy.  But for better or worse, that's how the system works.

[Orbert]

So you would send a guy to jail for kissing his wife in public on a Sunday?

Tell me, who is the victim in such a case, and how is society a safer, better place because you helped enforce such important laws?

[bosk1]

So you would send a guy to jail for kissing his wife in public on a Sunday?

We could come up with all the hypotheticals in the world to justify bucking the system, but that doesn't really change how the system is set up to work, does it?

(and, for the record, I think your question is somewhat moot by the fact that jurors can't send someone to jail for that given that there is not right to jury trial for a low-grade misdemeanor that merely imposes a fine and does not have the potential for jail time as one of the possible penalties).

[Orbert]

It wasn't meant to be hypothetical.  It's a real law.  I just didn't think about the fact that it probably wouldn't be a jury trial.

But you and others have made your position clear.  You would blindly follow the law and send someone to jail or prison, because it's your job, no matter how absurd the crime is in your opinion.  "Just following orders" and all that.

[El Barto]

It seems to me that if one is going to insist that jurors blindly obey the letter of the law, then they should have the ability to influence the sentencing.  Something that's always annoyed me is how every state seems to have it's own practices for sentencing.  In Tejas, jurors aren't allowed to consider what the sentence would be.  If you're going to insist that they find somebody guilty of a bullshit law, then you should give them the ability to mitigate it via the sentence.  Minimum sentencing guidelines just don't make much sense to me. 

[bosk1]

But you and others have made your position clear.  You would blindly follow the law and send someone to jail or prison, because it's your job, no matter how absurd the crime is in your opinion.  "Just following orders" and all that.

I'm not saying that is necessarily my position.  I'm just stating how the system is actually designed to work since there seemed to be some general confusion in the thread about that (which is understandable since none of the people posting thus far are lawyers, and other than El Barto, few have probably had reason to care deeply enough to have researched how it actually works in such minute detail).  Yes, jurors are supposed to blindly apply the law, and if they feel they cannot do that due to whatever personal biases they may hold (including biases that may actually be justified), they should be excused from the jury panel.

[William Wallace]

I'm not saying that is necessarily my position

Since you're the only expert here, what is your position?

[orcus116]

Yes, jurors are supposed to blindly apply the law, and if they feel they cannot do that due to whatever personal biases they may hold (including biases that may actually be justified), they should be excused from the jury panel.

Well in this case maybe the jury decided that the impending sentence would possibly be too harsh for possession of 1/16th of weed. I'm probably wrong on this so do correct me but I'm guessing if you're going to trail by your peers your sentence for something like that isn't going to be just a fine and maybe some community service hours. I'm getting the impression some jail time is looming, which IMO is too harsh for such an insignificant amount of weed.

[XJDenton]

There used to be laws against black people sharing the same spaces with white people.  PLM, are you suggesting that the juries in THOSE cases that were brought to court should have stuck to the full letter of the law?  No, of course not (because AFAIK, you are no white supremacist).  "But wait," one might say, "that's different!"  No, not really.

That logic works both ways. Should the jury be empowered to ignore racial equality laws so long as they are all in agreement?

[Orbert]

But you and others have made your position clear.  You would blindly follow the law and send someone to jail or prison, because it's your job, no matter how absurd the crime is in your opinion.  "Just following orders" and all that.

I'm not saying that is necessarily my position.  I'm just stating how the system is actually designed to work since there seemed to be some general confusion in the thread about that (which is understandable since none of the people posting thus far are lawyers, and other than El Barto, few have probably had reason to care deeply enough to have researched how it actually works in such minute detail).  Yes, jurors are supposed to blindly apply the law, and if they feel they cannot do that due to whatever personal biases they may hold (including biases that may actually be justified), they should be excused from the jury panel.

Okay, I gotcha.  I guess I have to make sure I get excused from the jury if I'm ever called for a case like this, because there's no way I could, in good conscience, vote to convict on a law I don't believe in.  Unfortunately, that would appear to leave it in the hands of the attorneys when selecting the jury in the first place, asking the questions which will reveal my biases.

Actually, no, fuck that.  If I'm on a jury and the facts have clearly shown that someone possessed a couple buds of marijuana, and my vote will send him to prison, I'm still not gonna vote to convict.  If the system assumes that people will blindly follow orders, the system is wrong, because I ain't gonna do it.

[icysk8r]

I think there is a greater issue.  While I think that if the crime was actually committed and it was an obvious disobedience to a written objective law, then fine.  Guilty.  However, I believe that when a whole jury believes a law is BS, it's time to look at that law again.  I don't feel like looking back at the thread to see who said this, but it's true that the only way we can change anything in America is to defy it, which is sad. 

[Progmetty]

Great people, remarkable stance.
PlaysLikeMyüng you know I love you dude but you're behaving like a conservative douche even though you're not one, just because you don't care for Marijuana, well I think it's a beautiful product of nature and I agree and support every gesture to public opinion that brings it closer to being legal.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Great people, remarkable stance.
PlaysLikeMyüng you know I love you dude but you're behaving like a conservative douche even though you're not one, just because you don't care for Marijuana, well I think it's a beautiful product of nature and I agree and support every gesture to public opinion that brings it closer to being legal.

This is the only thing i'm conservative about; I do not abide drug use AT ALL. I've seen too many people's lives ruined because of them, and I see no reason it should be legalized.

[Adami]

I have to somewhat side with PLM here.


While I agree it's neat to see someone not get in trouble for drug use, a jury decided what is or isn't a law is a very slippery slope.


What if a jury decides that racism is cool, or that another law shouldn't be a law? We're all rooting for this only because we agree with their decision. What happens when we don't agree with it?

[PowerSlave]

Great people, remarkable stance.
PlaysLikeMyüng you know I love you dude but you're behaving like a conservative douche even though you're not one, just because you don't care for Marijuana, well I think it's a beautiful product of nature and I agree and support every gesture to public opinion that brings it closer to being legal.

This is the only thing i'm conservative about; I do not abide drug use AT ALL. I've seen too many people's lives ruined because of them, and I see no reason it should be legalized.

I'm certainly not pro-drug myself. I don't use any unless you count smoking ciggarettes or on the occasions where I've used pain killers for kidney stones. But, I'm not really convinced that people who smoke pot have poor behaviour because of the drug. I think that the "proto-typical" pot smoker that you see or hear about in the media ect. ect... is someone that is going to be anti-establishment with or without the "influence" of the drug, anyways. I highly doubt that it's a true representation of the majority of people that use it.

[lateralus88]

Great people, remarkable stance.
PlaysLikeMyüng you know I love you dude but you're behaving like a conservative douche even though you're not one, just because you don't care for Marijuana, well I think it's a beautiful product of nature and I agree and support every gesture to public opinion that brings it closer to being legal.

This is the only thing i'm conservative about; I do not abide drug use AT ALL. I've seen too many people's lives ruined because of them, and I see no reason it should be legalized.

I'm certainly not pro-drug myself. I don't use any unless you count smoking ciggarettes or on the occasions where I've used pain killers for kidney stones. But, I'm not really convinced that people who smoke pot have poor behaviour because of the drug. I think that the "proto-typical" pot smoker that you see or hear about in the media ect. ect... is someone that is going to be anti-establishment with or without the "influence" of the drug, anyways. I highly doubt that it's a true representation of the majority of people that use it.

You have no idea how true this statement is. The stereotypical pot smoker is actually much less common than just the average joe who likes to like light up now and again, at least from my experience. They exist, but it's not as prominent as many might think.

[Chino]

Great people, remarkable stance.
PlaysLikeMyüng you know I love you dude but you're behaving like a conservative douche even though you're not one, just because you don't care for Marijuana, well I think it's a beautiful product of nature and I agree and support every gesture to public opinion that brings it closer to being legal.

This is the only thing i'm conservative about; I do not abide drug use AT ALL. I've seen too many people's lives ruined because of them, and I see no reason it should be legalized.

Just out of curiosity, why should it remain illegal? I have the feeling that you categorize marijuana with other drugs like meth, cocaine, heroin, etc... I agree, those drugs destroys lives and can cause nothing but problems after prolonged use. It's not right to feel the same way about pot just because Nixon had to be a dick and categorize it as a level one risk to society.

[Progmetty]

Great people, remarkable stance.
PlaysLikeMyüng you know I love you dude but you're behaving like a conservative douche even though you're not one, just because you don't care for Marijuana, well I think it's a beautiful product of nature and I agree and support every gesture to public opinion that brings it closer to being legal.

This is the only thing i'm conservative about; I do not abide drug use AT ALL. I've seen too many people's lives ruined because of them, and I see no reason it should be legalized.

Just out of curiosity, why should it remain illegal? I have the feeling that you categorize marijuana with other drugs like meth, cocaine, heroin, etc... I agree, those drugs destroys lives and can cause nothing but problems after prolonged use. It's not right to feel the same way about pot just because Nixon had to be a dick and categorize it as a level one risk to society.

I was gonna say that, something tells me PLM this all pot smokers are this guy:

 

[Fuzzboy]

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I never said it was really harmful; I said I didn't like it.

And regardless of what a lot of you might think, it does act as a 'gateway' drug for a lot of people.

and I've seen one of my friends high before; he acts and talks like a fucking idiot. And he's smart otherwise. It dumbs him down. So why would I think it's a good thing? I'm all for feeling good, but damn there are other ways to do it

[El Barto]

I never said it was really harmful; I said I didn't like it.

And regardless of what a lot of you might think, it does act as a 'gateway' drug for a lot of people.

and I've seen one of my friends high before; he acts and talks like a fucking idiot. And he's smart otherwise. It dumbs him down. So why would I think it's a good thing? I'm all for feeling good, but damn there are other ways to do it

To quote a noteworthy Vulcan, "the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."  We all find ways to dumb ourselves down from time to time.  Personally, I find it quite beneficial whatever the method. 

And I find the gateway effect to be completely specious. 

[PowerSlave]

I never said it was really harmful; I said I didn't like it.

And regardless of what a lot of you might think, it does act as a 'gateway' drug for a lot of people.

and I've seen one of my friends high before; he acts and talks like a fucking idiot. And he's smart otherwise. It dumbs him down. So why would I think it's a good thing? I'm all for feeling good, but damn there are other ways to do it

I've seen people use the gateway drug excuse before. In my opinion, there's a major flaw in this way of thinking. It's used as more of an excuse for bad behaviour rather than someone owning up to the fact that they acted/are acting like an irresponsible douche bag. They simply couldn't have a character weakness that led to their abuse of drugs, it has to be the drug's fault. They didn't go broke because they couldn't manage their expenses, it's the credit card company's fault. Their house didn't burn down because they left a heater on all night too close to the dead x-mas tree, the flying spaghetti monster in the sky decided to curse them. It's always someone or something elses fault.

[Chino]

I never said it was really harmful; I said I didn't like it.

And regardless of what a lot of you might think, it does act as a 'gateway' drug for a lot of people.

and I've seen one of my friends high before; he acts and talks like a fucking idiot. And he's smart otherwise. It dumbs him down. So why would I think it's a good thing? I'm all for feeling good, but damn there are other ways to do it

To quote a noteworthy Vulcan, "the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."  We all find ways to dumb ourselves down from time to time.  Personally, I find it quite beneficial whatever the method. 

And I find the gateway effect to be completely specious. 

Exactly. Humans today have way more shit on their plates than any generation before us. We have the highest stress, anxiety, and depression levels ever. Sometimes, it can be more than overwhelming for people, it could be harmful. Too much negativity will wreak havoc on the brain, and physically damage the rest of the body as well. If a little pot could prevent those symptoms, even for a few hours a day, why wouldn't it be encouraged? I would trust it more than the half dozen or so medications I have had to take over the last few years.

[Orbert]

The "gateway" theory is fucking bullshit anyway.  People who are inclined to use drugs, and currently use heroin or cocaine or barbituates or amphetamines, started with pot because pot is cheaper and more readily available, especially for school kids.  They don't do hard drugs because they smoked pot; they just smoked pot first.  I know dozens of people who smoke pot, who have tried coke, pills, even acid, and have just stuck with pot.

As for it being "wrong" -- why, because it's illegal?  Alcohol was illegal during prohibition.  Now it's not.  So it was either okay during prohibition or it's wrong now, because it's still the same damned substance.  Some people drink alcohol to relax and let off steam, some people smoke dope.  They only difference is that some idiots in Washington get to decide what's legal and what's not, but if you let them tell you what's right and what's wrong, you have larger issues than worrying about what someone else does in the privacy of their own home.

[7StringedBeast]

^^

[icysk8r]

I'm a little late to the party, but here it goes:

If someone is accused of murder, the Jury hears the evidence and determines if the defendant did in fact commit the crime of murder based on the evidence presented to them. The law defines murder very clearly, so it is a pretty clear line. Everyone should agree with that.

The same thing can be said about the marijuana possession charge. The law says a certain amount of possession is illegal, then the Jury must convict (or not) based on the evidence presented to them. That seems pretty clear.

People refusing to convict someone on marijuana possession (based on personal beliefs) when the defendant had obviously broken the law is ridiculous. They honestly should be ashamed of themselves.

Do your damn job, people. Hear the evidence and determine whether or not they broke the law as it is written.

The juries job is to interpret whether the law is just.  They are a part of the judicial system.  If they don't believe someone deserves to go to jail then that person shouldn't go to jail.  Otherwise we wouldn't need a jury.

Also, the laws on murder aren't as defined as you say.  If a person kills in defense, they still committed homicide, but the jury can decide whether they should go to jail. 

On gateway drugs:  That's BS.  It's flipping the statistics to make them say what they want them to. 
True, MOST people who are on hard drugs started with marijuana, however MOST people who tried marijuana did not go to heavier drugs.

Either way, is anyone hurting you for smoking pot?  No, so let them do to themselves what they fucking want.  Stop damning everyone who isn't as perfect as you.  Why tell your brother of the speck of sawdust in his eye when you have a plank in your own?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I never said it was really harmful; I said I didn't like it.

And regardless of what a lot of you might think, it does act as a 'gateway' drug for a lot of people.

and I've seen one of my friends high before; he acts and talks like a fucking idiot. And he's smart otherwise. It dumbs him down. So why would I think it's a good thing? I'm all for feeling good, but damn there are other ways to do it

To quote a noteworthy Vulcan, "the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."  We all find ways to dumb ourselves down from time to time.  Personally, I find it quite beneficial whatever the method. 

And I find the gateway effect to be completely specious. 

Exactly. Humans today have way more shit on their plates than any generation before us. We have the highest stress, anxiety, and depression levels ever. Sometimes, it can be more than overwhelming for people, it could be harmful. Too much negativity will wreak havoc on the brain, and physically damage the rest of the body as well. If a little pot could prevent those symptoms, even for a few hours a day, why wouldn't it be encouraged? I would trust it more than the half dozen or so medications I have had to take over the last few years.

Sooo, we should turn to drugs when we're depressed? That seems like a good idea.

They don't do hard drugs because they smoked pot; they just smoked pot first.  I know dozens of people who smoke pot, who have tried coke, pills, even acid, and have just stuck with pot.

Maybe it's not exactly causal, but there's certainly a correlation. But, as you said, they at least TRIED it. That's bad enough.

And, as I've said before, I say it's wrong IN MY OPINION. I didn't think I needed to add that, but apparently I do.

Oh, and the government tells us what's right and wrong all the time. It's not limited to drugs.