this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
675 points (97.7% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
0 readers
11 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
- Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment).
- Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction.
- Don't use private communications to prove your point. We can't verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don't deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin' in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 4 months ago
You need to lie to the judge under oath to do it. There simply aren't consequences, but it is very much illegal.
Wrong. They try to filter out people who know about jury nullification, but the act itself is not illegal, as you do not have to have the knowledge to accidentally do it anyway.
That seems pretty unfair to filter out people who know about it, it's basically filtering knowledgeable people.
There's no basically, that's literally what it is
“They” being the state.
Just to be clear, one of the standard questions to ask a potential jury is "you must be able to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at the trial and in the context of the law as I will give it to you in my instructions, disregarding any other ideas, notions, or beliefs about the law. Are you able to do this?"
If you know about jury nullification, with the intent of using it, then you need to lie under oath to get past this question.
The question was taken from the New Mexico US courts
Ahead of time, I could answer truthfully that I am able. I don't have to say "but when the time comes, I may choose not to for any reason"
I mean that may be "the truth", but it is purposely not "the whole truth". Which is a violation of the oath. The only way jury nullification is allowed is if a jury independently decides not to convict, because then jury is unbiased in deciding that the law is wrong or shouldn't apply.
Again, if you are selected for jury duty, and you already have decided you will ignore the law to avoid convicting the criminal, then there is no way you can make it past the selection without lying to the court.
I think then talks about jury nullification may be changed in such a way that no legal matter is discussed, but a jury is still inclined to act such that nullification happens, and that will be in accordance to the phrasing of the oath
Check the links in the main post. Your example question and many other variations of it are explicitly addressed there.
Afaik, in a court of law, the questions they ask matter. If it is a poorly worded question, it is the fault of the one interrogating. Don't answer your own version of their questions
Check the links in the main post. Your example question and many other variations of it are explicitly addressed there.
But in short, you answer truthfully, but stick to the letter of your answer and not what the judge thinks. There's nothing illegal about it.
You do not have to lie to the judge. There is no lying to the judge. If the jury decides to ignore evidence and nullify, the judge knows exactly why, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Before being selected to be on the jury, the candidates are asked questions after being sworn in, that almost always include language that would disallow ideas of jury nullification.
I was a juror in two different trials and don't recall ever being asked about my beliefs on jury nullification. It's been many years though.
Edit: it seems like I was wrong. Supposedly, jury nullification is not legal in my US state.
Edit 2: perhaps it's still not completely settled in my state yet?
See links in top post. Jury nullification is legal, it is inherently part of how our justice system is structured. However, most judges and prosecutors would much rather prefer you didn't know your rights, and have outright lied in court about it.
Thanks. I hadn't read your link, but found articles giving conflicting case history in my state. It was a quick read of those articles though.
Why are people downvoting this? Jury nullification itself isn't illegal, but committing perjury definitely is, which is what Maalus is pointing out
Because Maalus keeps insisting on treating them as one and the same.