Juries decide whether defendants are guilty of the charges against them. They do not decide whether the law ought to apply. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re right… I’m not going to be able to put an argument before you that you’ll be able to comprehend.

It’s patently obvious to everyone that a fair and just system of laws needs to apply equally to everyone, even in cases where we dislike the victim.

You’re correct in that the jury prevents a corrupt government from convicting innocent people.

That’s why a jury’s role is to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. You will note there’s no third option for a jury to return a verdict of “guilty but exempt”.

Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply? That’s the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.

I guess this is the core of the issue.

I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.

Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.

You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?

This is just more words saying the same thing - that jurors should just make up the law based on the vibe of the case. It’s absurd to me that so many people in these threads complain that the legal system is unfair, and in the next breath propose that citizens should be able to set aside the law in specific situations because of the feels.

That is the antithesis of a fair and just system and honestly it’s exasperating rehashing the same concept over and over.

The answer to why guilt is determined by a jury of your peers is that it avoids having a judiciary that can charge, convict, and sentence a defendant. That seems patently obvious to me.

You need to be found guilty of the charges against you by a jury of your peers. The whole point is that the jury is not experienced in law, and interprets the facts and evidence as any reasonable third party would.

Juries are not appropriately positioned to determine a sentence because they are not experienced and have no frame of reference.

It’s telling that in these threads my comments are awash with downvotes but no one can provide an actual rebuttal.

Basically, people just don’t want luigi to be punished for murdering a shitty CEO. Sadly, that doesn’t make jury nullification a legitimate course of action.

That’s not the type of popularity I’m talking about.

Luigi is young, approachable, affable, and not unattractive. I don’t believe for a moment that someone without those qualities would enjoy any sympathy from a jury.

It’s really not a “fairness” because every case will be heard by different jurors with no legal experience.

The “fairness” you’re talking about will depend on the popularity of the accused.

Do you honestly believe Luigi would enjoy the support he has of he were an aging overweight bald guy?

At its core, jury nullification is about deciding cases based on the vibe.

The jury nullification thing pisses me off.

I get that people don’t want Luigi to go to jail but wishing for juries to just make up the law based on the vibe of the case is just bonkers.

The court system is a joke already.