There are of course other ways the juror may nullify. The prosecution may lay out a watertight case of the facts that the defendant is guilty beyond any doubt, but the juror "likes" the defendant and gives the prosecution the middle finger - not voting for conviction no matter what "the law" says. And then there's the opposite case where the prosecution presents a case that is slipshod and confusing, yet the jurors all decide they "hate" the defendant and vote for whatever the prosecutor asks. "Why not? He's probably guilty of something else, even if not this case." Voir dire is a game both sides play to the hilt. Obviously judges want jurors who will follow the law, irrespective of their personal opinions - they're not the legislature.
Of course, and that's why jury selection can be such a big deal. But, personal bias isn't the same as applying one's own moral code or sense of right and wrong.
Prosecutors and justices are people, too, and not immune from bias or personal animus. Nullification can offset those.
In the column, it was stated that unjust laws "prohibit adults of sound mind from engaging in behaviors that do not harm others". I think there are two "gotchas" in that statement. What do we mean "of sound mind" and who determines that? The second one is the phrase "harm others". For example, the use of recreational drugs can result in child abuse as the parents neglect the children or worse. Often, the kids get tossed into the foster care system which can have its own kind of horrors. Can a society not then prohibit the use of recreational drug use by all to prevent the harm done to others by some?
Would you debar people using alcohol because some subset of drinkers abuse or neglect their kids?
No.
You can prosecute parents for child neglect instead.
There are plenty of people who use recreational drugs who do not abuse or neglect their kids. Punishing the many for the sins of the few is unconscionable and immoral.
If it were practical to prohibit the use of alcohol then the answer would be yes. But, it's not practical because it has become so ingrained in our society. Unfortunately, it seems that we are well on our way to doing the same with other drugs. Sins of the "few"? The meth epidemic and the resulting harm is not exactly small potatoes. Sooner or later, the harm done outweighs the loss of "freedom" for others unless you don't care about a society going downhill or you cavalierly dismiss the harm done to others.
How has prohibition worked out so far? You're arguing in favor of a fantasy. The drug war has done FAR more harm than good, and is a huge reason our government is as overreaching as it currently is.
Impossible idealism that leads to coercion and prohibition is far more dangerous to society than liberty. And the proof is at hand.
We haven't been willing to commit to what's necessary to break it. China was in a far worse situation than ours but increased both the penalties and help for users. It's not perfect but compared to how it was in China, it's a major reason why they are doing as well as they are on the world stage.
Having had to pick up the pieces after people get involved with drugs and helping abused kids, I am not quite as cavalier as some are regarding the harm done by the use of recreational drugs. What a society may enjoy doing may not be the same thing which preserves that society. I don't agree with everything China does but they are more realistic than we are when it comes to dealing with drugs. They know from their own history how widespread drug use can corrupt a society and make it a pawn of other nations. And, why the reference to Thomas Friedman?
There are of course other ways the juror may nullify. The prosecution may lay out a watertight case of the facts that the defendant is guilty beyond any doubt, but the juror "likes" the defendant and gives the prosecution the middle finger - not voting for conviction no matter what "the law" says. And then there's the opposite case where the prosecution presents a case that is slipshod and confusing, yet the jurors all decide they "hate" the defendant and vote for whatever the prosecutor asks. "Why not? He's probably guilty of something else, even if not this case." Voir dire is a game both sides play to the hilt. Obviously judges want jurors who will follow the law, irrespective of their personal opinions - they're not the legislature.
Of course, and that's why jury selection can be such a big deal. But, personal bias isn't the same as applying one's own moral code or sense of right and wrong.
Prosecutors and justices are people, too, and not immune from bias or personal animus. Nullification can offset those.
In the column, it was stated that unjust laws "prohibit adults of sound mind from engaging in behaviors that do not harm others". I think there are two "gotchas" in that statement. What do we mean "of sound mind" and who determines that? The second one is the phrase "harm others". For example, the use of recreational drugs can result in child abuse as the parents neglect the children or worse. Often, the kids get tossed into the foster care system which can have its own kind of horrors. Can a society not then prohibit the use of recreational drug use by all to prevent the harm done to others by some?
Would you debar people using alcohol because some subset of drinkers abuse or neglect their kids?
No.
You can prosecute parents for child neglect instead.
There are plenty of people who use recreational drugs who do not abuse or neglect their kids. Punishing the many for the sins of the few is unconscionable and immoral.
If it were practical to prohibit the use of alcohol then the answer would be yes. But, it's not practical because it has become so ingrained in our society. Unfortunately, it seems that we are well on our way to doing the same with other drugs. Sins of the "few"? The meth epidemic and the resulting harm is not exactly small potatoes. Sooner or later, the harm done outweighs the loss of "freedom" for others unless you don't care about a society going downhill or you cavalierly dismiss the harm done to others.
How has prohibition worked out so far? You're arguing in favor of a fantasy. The drug war has done FAR more harm than good, and is a huge reason our government is as overreaching as it currently is.
Impossible idealism that leads to coercion and prohibition is far more dangerous to society than liberty. And the proof is at hand.
We haven't been willing to commit to what's necessary to break it. China was in a far worse situation than ours but increased both the penalties and help for users. It's not perfect but compared to how it was in China, it's a major reason why they are doing as well as they are on the world stage.
So we are channeling Thomas Friedman now?
Once again, you give me ample reason to think that you have no regard for individual liberty.
As for China doing well, I wonder how the uyghurs feel.
Having had to pick up the pieces after people get involved with drugs and helping abused kids, I am not quite as cavalier as some are regarding the harm done by the use of recreational drugs. What a society may enjoy doing may not be the same thing which preserves that society. I don't agree with everything China does but they are more realistic than we are when it comes to dealing with drugs. They know from their own history how widespread drug use can corrupt a society and make it a pawn of other nations. And, why the reference to Thomas Friedman?
Feeling proud to be a Libertarian! 🤩
Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum.