From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 21/08/2025 09:01 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 > On 20/08/2025 18:56, Pancho wrote: 
 >> On 8/20/25 13:05, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 >>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:24:29 +0100, Pancho  
 >>> wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> There is also another important category, where the defendant doesn't 
 >>>> know if they are guilty, or not. It is quite often that essential facts 
 >>>> are undisputed, and it is for a jury to interpret the law. 
 >>> 
 >>> That's completely the wrong way round. In a trial, it's the judge's 
 >>> role to 
 >>> interpret the law, and the jury's role to decide on the facts. 
 >> 
 >> It is the jury's duty to decide upon a verdict, based upon their 
 >> conscience. 
 > 
 > No, that's not its duty.  Each juror is sworn onto a jury taking an oath 
 > promising to "faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict 
 > according to the evidence".  If they don't do that consistently and 
 > properly then we have no rule of law, so it has to be followed in the 
 > vast majority of cases. 
 > 
 > Of course, since jury reasoning cannot be questioned subsequently and no 
 > juror can be held to account for any verdict, it is theoretically open 
 > to any jury to ignore the evidence, ignore the law, and bring in a 
 > verdict base solely on conscience or even serendipity. 
  
 Indeed. Think "Ponting". 
  
 > That effectively 
 > negates the law under which the trial was conducted, and is called 'jury 
 > nullification'.  It's a serious business, and it's important that the 
 > ultimate right to do that is used very infrequently as it undermines the 
 > whole legal system. 
 > 
 > Most jurors I think accept their responsibilities under the law and have 
 > no desire to overturn or negate it except in wholly exceptional 
 > circumstances.  If someone will be hanged for stealing a sheep, it's 
 > okay to take a stand and acquit regardless of the evidence.  Otherwise 
 > generally it's not. 
 > 
 > If you take your civic responsibilities even semi-seriously, it's not a 
 > free-for-all, decide however you like, in a jury room. 
 > 
 >> Now, I understand authoritarian people don't like this, as it 
 >> undermines their authority. Hence, authoritarian people try to limit 
 >> the jury system in every way they can. Inventing some nonsense about 
 >> limiting jury duty to deciding on the facts is part of that. In 
 >> reality, the single fact the jury decide upon is guilty or not guilty. 
 > 
 > Those who maintain that a jury should decide any case according to 
 > conscience rather than the law are in fact advocating anarchy to secure 
 > their own selfish ends.  In general it is not being hanged for stealing 
 > a sheep territory. 
 >>>> As I said, I'm pretty sure I would have acquitted her. My politics are 
 >>>> centrist. I have no sympathy with targeting immigrants. I think there 
 >>>> are a lot of Reform voters who would have been more sympathetic than 
 >>>> me. 
 >>> 
 >>> I think Ricky Jones was lucky. A different jury could well have found 
 >>> him guilty. I think Lucy Connolly was unlucky. A different judge could 
 >>> well have given her a shorter sentence and suspended it. 
 > 
 >> Yes, trials can be very arbitrary. 
 > 
 > They are certainly more arbitrary if decided on such fluffy notions as 
 > conscience rather than the law. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)