Everyone being aware of it doesn’t mean it would happen all the time. I’m very aware of it and if selected I would still hear the case as dispassionately and impartially as possible, as I view a jury trial as a civic duty and an important cornerstone of criminal justice.
But I suspect the question you’re really asking is “What if every juror refused to convict in any crime?” And the answer to that question is that jury trials would no longer be a thing if juries weren’t useful. Judges would hear the cases and rule themselves (and judges already rule summarily in many trials today).
But I suspect the question you’re really asking is “What if every juror refused to convict in any crime?”
Eventually they would allow jurors to bring their guns…
/s
Its actually not, I’m just curious because they obviously try to screen out anyone even superficially aware of it so it raises the interesting question of how that would play out societally, like would the death penalty leverage essentially be erased and in what other ways would it affect jurisprudence and application of the law
I find it interesting that simply having been involved in litigation (I got sued once for an art piece) seems to be enough that I go home every time I’m called for jury duty. They really do want people with no idea.
Huh
Have you ever been selected for jury duty? I haven’t, so I can’t speak to the screening process.
In cases of capital punishment I wouldn’t be surprised if they screen out people who are against it, since it would be a conflict of interest. A jury’s only purpose is to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime, not to weigh in on sentencing. Although I’m pretty sure sentencing comes later anyway.
I believe it is to the same extent that the President of the United States is immune in carrying out official duties and with equal breadth and arbitraryness. To accept anything less licks the boot that says all are equal under the law but the President is King
Its equally outrageous that a president can pardon people to the idea that a citizen or multiple citizens together can do the same
Just because the President being able to do it lawful doesnt mean either aren’t equally arbitrary and thus amoral
If the law is wrong or its being applied unequally, legitimacy must be restored to the law by uniting those the law protects and those the law binds. If the two should depart they must be reunited
Supposing that any change did materialize, it is a bedrock principle of legal procedure to not change substantially just because the outcomes have noticeable changed. That is to say, if there was anything like a sudden drop in conviction rates, it would be improper for the judges, appellate justices, and defense and prosecuting attorneys to do anything different than what they would have done prior. That’s kinda the point of having a procedure: to follow it and see what happens, accepting the result of turning the cogwheels.
The path to making such changes would have to be done legislatively, since – at least in the USA/California – that’s how changes to the law and civil/criminal procedure are made. Sure, entities like the Judicial Council of California would be making recommendations, but it’s on the Legislature to evaluate the problem and implement any necessary changes.
Law without procedure would just be decrees, wayward and unprincipled.
Probably would make prosecutors think twice about bringing certain cases to trial. Any “sympathetic” defendants would likely just get a plea deal, and probably a lax one.
Influencers/Famous people could also do what they like, because prosecuting means risking that a jury could just side with them, regardless of the seriousness of the crime.
It wouldn’t.
One way to check could be to get a billboard outside a court house, or as close as possible. Inform the public via the billboard. Check if court outcomes change.
I don’t think much would change. Prosecutors already weed out sympathetic jurors during selection and a non-sympathetic jury wouldn’t nullify even if they knew they could.
