99
The point is to have a ritualistic performance validating the judge's ruling as coming from the people.
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
99 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14333 readers
643 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I dunno. Kinda of like, what's the point of health insurance if you still need to pay out of pocket whenever you visit the hospital...
So you're saying we need a 
for judges?
Hell yeah
Alabama is the only state where judges have routinely overridden jury verdicts of life to impose capital punishment.
Since 1976, Alabama judges have overridden jury verdicts 112 times. Judges have authority to override life or death verdicts, but 91% of overrides have overruled jury verdicts of life to impose the death penalty.
Judge override is a significant contributor to Alabama’s high death sentencing rate. Nearly 20% of the people currently on death row were sentenced to death through judicial override.
I'm sorry, we need a second jury to deliberate on the validity of the first jury
Is peer-ship compounding? Does the second jury need to be comprised of people who've served jury duty before?
Idk, probably need a third jury just to be sure.
You're only allowed to be a juror if you've served 900 consecutive days of jury duty. Huh, this is almost as dystopian as job requirements 
The "blue alien" personality test but for jury duty
Imagine being Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men, convincing the jury, then when you present your verdict to the judge he orders your arrest.
lmao good luck getting a jury to convict a jury for giving the answer they believe in
just getting arrested and being taken to trial could ruin these jury members lives, it's an intimidation tactic they dont actually need to convict these juries to accomplish their goal. and lets say a jury calls their bluff and gets charged, i dont think it would be impossible to construct a jury that would choose to save their own skins
tagging u @Keld@hexbear.net so i dont have to leave the same comment twice
ACAB and that means judges, too.
I've been reading the Assata auto-biography and I can't agree more with this sentiment.
Jury Nullification (derogatory)
laws are fake
are
fake
::: spoiler silly Laws:
Are Fake
Are Are A rake
Fake Faker Fake
∴ Laws are a rake faker.
This is a UK court right?
US Supreme Court has determined that jurors have constitutional right to nullify laws but in the UK it was just a "norm."spoiler
About to make a constitutional argument despite understanding that words on paper don't actually mean sh*t when you get down to it:
Your honor, do you think youre gonna find a jury to convinct a jury?
From the one time I had to report for jury duty, it's because juries are supposed to consider only the facts presented by both the prosecution and the defense when making their decision.
Edit: Essentially like everything in the US, we like to think it's all a carefully managed system with checks and balances. In reality it's just a byzantine nightmare of rules, norms, and loopholes.
No your honor it's not my conscience that is making me hand down this verdict. In fact I find the charge repulsive. To break a window. This violates our most sacred norms. However I'm just not convinced by the evidence. We must find the true culprit.
In Denmark juries were introduced in 1919. They were allegedly supposed to ensure concurrence between the popular sense of justice and the criminal justice system.
The only field where these juries gave noticeable different verdicts from those of professional judges was in abortion cases where the juries were more lenient. The state reacted a couple of years later, not by relaxing the laws that banned abortion at the time and bringing them in alignment with popular sentiment, but by excluding abortion cases from jury trials.