Jurist Nullification
Here's where it gets REALLY interesting:
"...members of Veterans For Peace staged a similar protest on the same anniversary of the Afghanistan war last year and more than a dozen people were arrested. Their cases were taken to court this July and they were convicted of park trespassing after defying the NYPD order to leave the park after 10pm. But immediately after the convictions, the judge threw out the guilty verdicts he had just given, saying “Justice cries out for a dismissal.” He dismissed several other minor charges and ended on a note warning the individuals that it was a “one-time deal” and to not enter the park after 10pm again."
I like jury nullification, [in which the jury exercises its right to rule on the law rather than the innocence or guilt of the accused] but I might like Jurist Nullification even better!
"...members of Veterans For Peace staged a similar protest on the same anniversary of the Afghanistan war last year and more than a dozen people were arrested. Their cases were taken to court this July and they were convicted of park trespassing after defying the NYPD order to leave the park after 10pm. But immediately after the convictions, the judge threw out the guilty verdicts he had just given, saying “Justice cries out for a dismissal.” He dismissed several other minor charges and ended on a note warning the individuals that it was a “one-time deal” and to not enter the park after 10pm again."
I like jury nullification, [in which the jury exercises its right to rule on the law rather than the innocence or guilt of the accused] but I might like Jurist Nullification even better!
It should not be for Judge Dredd to decide whether you are an exception to a law simply because you're having a hissy-fit on public property (as opposed to having a late-night picnic), or because at one time you carried a weapon in service of the country.
We also have, in the courtroom, the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. It's a "last ditch" defense, and one can find oneself serving a very long contempt of court sentence for even mentioning it, but it does exist and does occasionally appear. The judge here was not hanging his case on the merits of the defendants - it was hanging on the validity and ethical content of the law itself.
There was a case in Colorado that went to the state Supreme Court; a juror had refused to find a defendant guilty of a drug charge because she believed the law to be wrong. She did spend time in jail for contempt of court, and she did eventually win.This verdict was, of course, not widely publicized.
It's one thing for cops to overlook trespassing in a park after 10 by a guy rushing someone to the hospital and taking a shortcut; it's another for cops to overlook it because a group of people want to stand around and pontificate, or because of who they are.
Three people are in a park after 10pm curfew. One is a busboy waiting to meet his girlfriend for a romantic midnight supper. One is a union official picketing the park's lack of doilies. One is a federal Senator from that State waiting for the prostitute he's hired. Who gets a ticket?
Justly, all of them should. Practically, the busboy's going to get a ticket, the others will be let go... IF we let the cops decide, rather than a judge or jury.