I don’t think this is true unless you’re diabetic.

For non-diabetics insulin will store all the glucose just fine. Even if you have an elevated level for several hours I don’t think that’s particularly problematic to your health. It’s problematic to diabetics because their levels are elevated perpetually.

Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.

As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just made up poppycock that sounds nice.

I’m sure that wherever that’s written down in the “rules” it also says all good dogs go to heaven right?

Anyhow, as we seem to have exhausted your repertoire of made up constitutional wisdom I think I’ll leave you to continue reassuring yourself that the founding fathers invented jury nullification and wanted Luigi to walk free.

While I look forward to reading your final parting dispensation of mythical wondery, I will not reply.

Can you clarify what you’re actually saying?

If you’re trying to imply that a more moral person would see things your way, I couldn’t care less. It’s a pretty meaningless assertion.

You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.

That’s simply not how laws are intended to be applied. Democratically elected representatives debate moral considerations when designing laws. If you want criminal law to include an exemption for murderers of CEOs that you don’t like, you should write to your local rep I guess.

In the mean time, jurors will just have to apply the law as it stands.

What is the constitutional basis for your allowance of this check against the courts? How is this check restricted to only the courts, and not to the legislature or the executive?

Any observer can see that the jury is in place to provide a check against the judiciary and the executive. Police can’t simply make accusations and have a judge pronounce a punishment without a jury to apply the law.

There’s a well established system with which to check the legislature. We elect representatives who debate proposed changes to legislation before passing it in to law.

They aren’t subverting the intentions of the voting populace. They are applying the intention of the voting populace to the particular circumstances of the case.

This doesn’t require jury nullification. The intention of the voting populace is encoded in these things called laws. A judge is on hand to assist a jury in interpreting the law, and applying relevant precedents. On this basis a jury can determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges against them.

How should a jury operate in a broken system? If the laws are unjust, is the jury supposed to enforce that the injustice, or are they supposed to provide a remedy to that injustice?

Comically, in my first post I said that this is where these discussions usually end up. You don’t like the idea of living in a broken society so you’re trying to support your belief that there’s a mechanism in place to fix it all. Of course a jury is supposed to enforce unjust laws. Courts often produce unjust outcomes, puppies die sometimes. Having a jury just make up the law based on how much they like the defendant or dislike the victim hasn’t provided very just outcomes in the past.

Some opinions are more poorly considered than others.

“I’m right but I just can’t explain it because you don’t understand it”.

You’re still tepid. I’m weary of this silly “what if our layperson jury stands on one foot while sucking a lemon” tete-a-tete. If you have a point then make it.

Of course a jury is supposed to apply the law.

There’s this whole other process to ensure that laws are not corrupt nor incompetent nor maliciously applied called the democratic election of law makers. If laws are unjust then the system is broken.

It’s antithetical to the democratic process to propose that 12 people can subvert the intentions of the voting populace.

Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?

That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.

This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.

But you’re unable to support your claim.

That doesn’t really check out.

In the US the constitution defines how a court is supposed to be run. It’s more or less identical to the English system, which was never defined in a constitution but just evolved over a millennia.

There were no founding fathers who wrote a document to include this “ultimate check”.

Additionally, if this were an intended “ultimate check” it would become “the way” that court cases are resolved. A judge would merely be a steward conducting proceedings and a jury would just mete out justice based on the vibe of the matters before them.

The far more obvious reason jury nullification is possible is what I’ve already said - jurors need to be able to make a finding of guilt or innocence free from retribution. The deleterious side effect of this freedom is that jurors can say “this whole system stinks and we find the defendant to be purple”, without any consequence.

The requirement for a jury of your peers to find you guilty ensures that a corrupt court can not make arbitrary pronouncements of guilt.

Sure. The problem I have with such a “release valve” is that it would be inherently unjust. Of course some defendents of a certain race or gender or appearance would be more likely to have their case nullified.

If you think courts should be more lenient, then codify it in law. The reason why it’s not codified, is because punishments are already designed to be appropriate to the crime.

Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.

The role of the jury in criminal trials is to review questions of fact and to determine guilt or innocence according to the law.

what do you mean a “looser” system? Do you mean like, good baddies like luigi walk but bad baddies like mexicans or weird looking people don’t?

Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.

Did you just make this part up because it sounds nice ?

You haven’t actually rebutted anything I’ve said.

Jurors have no responsibilities to the justice system

That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.

A system where jurors just nullify cases when they don’t dig the vibe is obviously not a justice system.

The only reason the western world is falling all over themselves to believe in jury nullification is because our justice system is completely unjust and wealthy people can just string things out indefinitely.

This is a super unpopular opinion in 2025, but I’m a grown up and happy to take the downvotes.

Jury Nullification isn’t really a “thing” as in it’s not intended to be a function available to the jury.

The justice system intends for Jury’s to perform a very specific function: to find a defendant guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

However, jurors must be able to make that determination free from any concerns as to repercussions against them. The system couldn’t work if a juror feared being held responsible for their finding. Imagine if overlooking or misinterpreting something as a juror could be a crime? It would present a very ready mechanism for corruption “Any juror that finds Trump guilty will be subject to prosecution by the next republican government”.

So, jurors have absolute protection from any responsibility as to their findings, and as such they are able to say “we think luigi probably did commit this crime but he seems like a great guy so our unanimous finding is not-guilty”.

It’s a subversion of the justice system. Jurors may take this third option without consequence but they are not upholding their responsibilities to the justice system.

My concern with jury nullification is that if jurors can decide whether the law should apply in whatever case, they’re essentially making up the law based on nothing more than their feelings about what happened. Additionally, it makes a court case more of a popularity contest than a fair application of the law.

The common rebuttal to what I’ve said is that the justice system is rarely just. That may be the case but justice is not going to be improved by moving to a kangaroo court. We may as well throw defendants in the river and pronounce those who do not drown to be guilty.

It’s as though Trump think’s he’s the first person in history to realise that canada has some nice things.

If you have a $200b trade deficit you can just take over that country and then there’s no deficit.

There’s a variety of reasons.

1. instances are communities, some more loose than others
2. some instances have themes. lemmy.world is general, aussie.zone welcomes anyone but it’s mostly Australians or friends there-of. Having a user name/address like vvilld@aussie.zone says something about you.
3. some instances have ideological alignments, lemmy.ml are tankies
4. some instances de-federate from others, like hexbear is not federated by some / many instances.
5. the “local” feed can be like a set of subscriptions or curated content. slrpnk.net is the best example I can think of for this, mostly environmentally conscious tech, and renewables, et cetera.
6. some admins turn out to be idiots. In the early days there was some support from admins of specific / niche instances for bots re-posting content from reddit.
7. there’s no good reason not to have multiple accounts. In my own case I change instances regularly. IDK why exactly, I just actively avoid allowing my account to become some kind of extension of my identity.