You are put on the jury. How do you decide/act?

[Torie]

A judge was sentencing juveniles for very minor offenses to long sentences in juvenile hall, run be a private contractor. He was convicted of taking cash from the juvenile hall contractor, for each kid he sent their way, so he sent there every kid he could get his hands on (he took about a million dollars in kick backs). The son of one mother for having a bit of pot in his pocket I think, got a substantial sentence and was sent to this facility, and later committed suicide. The mother confronted the judge after he was sentenced on the steps of the court. Please watch the video. Her son was but one of many the judge managed to unjustly damage or destroy the lives of - for cash. You won't see it in the video, but the judge showed no emotion when the mother cried out her pain and anger, and has never shown any emotion or remorse whatsoever. He is what they call in the trade a "sociopath."

My question is this. Suppose the mother pulled a nail filer or something out of her purse, and stuck it in the the judge's neck, and he got unlucky that it hit a major artery, and was taking blood thinner, so he bled to death before the bleeding could be staunched. She is tried for voluntary manslaughter, which is the crime that she committed. You are on the jury. Do you convict her of the crime that she committed, or nullify, finding that she is not guilty by reason of insanity?

Yes, if it were my son (well if it were my son, probably this would never have happened because I would have had the knowledge and resources to induce the judge to just move on and fck the next kid, but just assume that it did), I probably would have killed him, and take my chances.  I mean it.  Heck, I am used to jail now.

You will find as you go through life, that assuming that you have a functioning  superego,  you will face a few excruciatingly moral dilemmas to parse before you assume room temperature, so consider this a practice round for that.

[Franzl]

Tough question.

I think I would vote to convict, though. It becomes quite a slippery slope if we start finding cases of "reasonable" manslaughter. If we started allowing that, it seems like there would be no real reason to keep voluntary manslaughter on the books. There's always a reason, some more legitimate than others I guess...but that's ultimately too subjective.

Nullification, IMO, at least im cases as serious as manslaughter, would be too counterproductive to maintaining the rule of law for me to be able to do it.

[memphis]

Not tough at all. Guilty. Somebody being a corrupt asshat is not justification for deadly force. If it were, there would be a lot more dead people.

[courts]

Not guilty/nullification.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not guilty by reason of insanity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Option 2.  If the weapon used had been something more distinctly a weapon, option 1, but using a nail file is pretty indicative that the woman was not acting from a rational decision to harm the judge.  Might could have convicted of involuntary manslaughter if that had been an option, but not voluntary.

[Roemerista]

The Law is King. If "it is the crime she committed" than she should serve it. Jury nullification to me is simply shierking our responsibility to her as well as to the public body. It is a high cost, but a cost we need to pay to enjoy a trial by our peers.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Option 2, largely for the reason Ernest posted above.  It is unclear if the intention was to kill him.. she may have just been trying to cause non-lethal harm or any harm she could because she was so emotionally unbalanced over the whole thing.

I'd say she was unable to control herself in the situation and thus cannot be held personally responsible for the crime.

If I were the judge presiding over the case and the jury found her guilty, I'd give her the minimum sentence possible allowed by law.

[tpfkaw]

Ugh, voted "guilty" because I didn't read the whole thing and thought you were referring to the judge.

Anyways, I'd vote plain "not guilty."  That woman would be a hero.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anyways, I'd vote plain "not guilty."  That woman would be a hero.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Find her guilty of assault

[Beet]

A Classic.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMGMZsKXz94

* Not necessary saying this is how I would approach the issue.

[minionofmidas]

In Scotland they have "not proven" for this kind of cases. Which basically means "you can go but don't do it again, okay?"

[Free Palestine]

Option 3.  I have better things to do than jury duty.

[Bacon King]

Option 2, per Ernest's explanation.

In Scotland they have "not proven" for this kind of cases. Which basically means "you can go but don't do it again, okay?"

I've read about Scotland's "Not Proven" verdict, and was actually wondering what circumstances in practice it was used in. Thanks.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Under common criminal law there's the 'egg shell skull rule' - it revolves around an assault committed against a man who had a condition which meant he had especially brittle bones - under normal circumstances the force was not such as would normally kill someone, but in this case, this person suffered a fractured skull and died.

The Judge directed the jury to not take this into account, as long as there is a direct connection between the act or omission of the defendant (even unknowing of the condition) and the person's death - then they will be considered full legally culpable.

... however - even before you get to that, you need to consider this woman's state of mind... not guilty by reason of insanity... in this case will not fly, diminished capacity could - which would negate the mens rea and lead her open to manslaughter... beyond that - was she negligent in sticking a nail file into someone's neck... (another option for manslaughter) not in my opinion - was she reckless (ie being aware of the risk to the person, but carrying out the act anyway - but without specific intent to kill)? perhaps, in which case she would be charged with murder.

I wouldn't let it get to manslaughter personally, mind you, I wouldn't let her off for this. So yes, guilty of something... not sure exactly how it would get to voluntary manslaughter...

The Judge may have been a monster, and by all accounts he was, there are better ways to handle this, and she should be tried accordingly.

... I was known in law school for being a bit of a hard-arse on such things.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Option 2, per Ernest's explanation.

In Scotland they have "not proven" for this kind of cases. Which basically means "you can go but don't do it again, okay?"

I've read about Scotland's "Not Proven" verdict, and was actually wondering what circumstances in practice it was used in. Thanks.

What I read actually is that it doesn't give you double jeopardy protection, you can be tried again for the crime. A "not guilty" verdict does mean one can not be tried again.

[minionofmidas]

That is false.

[SvenssonRS]

Anyways, I'd vote plain "not guilty."  That woman would be a hero.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not tough at all. Guilty. Somebody being a corrupt asshat is not justification for deadly force. If it were, there would be a lot more dead people.

Exactly.  But I'd opt for a lesser charge if it was included.

[opebo]

The case is a nice example of what is wrong with capitalism, but I wouldn't care much about the individual people involved.  I'd probably prioritize getting out of jury duty over participating in order to vote for option number two. 

Ideally one would not hope to solve this type of capitalist problem by clever heroic moves like slaughtering individual capitalist offenders, or voting to clear their killers, but rather by voting for socialist or social-democratic political parties which would end this sort of oppression, which is caused by the capitalist system.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why I could probably never serve on a jury. I can not make decisions in accordance to the law, just my own personal views. As I stated before I could never deal with the guilt of convicting anyone of a marijuana-related crime, so if ever did somehow end up on a jury for such a crime the law goes out the window, they will not be convicted. Here would be kind of similar. So Option 3 I guess.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is why I could probably never serve on a jury. I can not make decisions in accordance to the law, just my own personal views.

If it was your fanny on the line (not in this case, necessarily), would you want jurors to follow the law, or their personal views, which could be a double edged sword?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Considering what I'd likely be arrested for if I ever was (marijuana or whatever), their personal views.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Considering what I'd likely be arrested for if I ever was (marijuana or whatever), their personal views.

Ha ha, you better hope the jury isn't full of twin cities prudes.......Torie and I and opebo and angus would let you go