Just another reminder about the "Daniel Penny trial".
Archive: https://archive.today/2igTi
From the post:
>Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity,[1][2] or a perverse verdict,[3][4] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.[9] Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:
Just another reminder about the "Daniel Penny trial".
Archive: https://archive.today/2igTi
From the post:
>>Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity,[1][2] or a perverse verdict,[3][4] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.[9] Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:
