What do you think? Unable to reach a verdict? Ridiculous. The verdict should have been not guilty. [theguardian.com]
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I think this was a good outcome. They obviously could not overlook the fact that he broke the law but at the same time, they felt the law he broke was not a good one and voted as they did.
I hope he wins on the re-trial as well. No matter, though, he had to do what he did to live with himself. Who can see another human suffer or die because you did nothing?
thinktwice
Level 8
July 5, 2019
1
This is a form of jury nullification, which is a good part of our legal system when it is exercised properly. It allows the common people a way to overrule unjust laws indirectly in the interests of justice.
TomMcGiverin
Level 8
July 5, 2019
1
Like many other attorneys I feel like this was an excellent outcome. Near perfect in fact. He technically violated a law but the jury, representing the social conscience of the community, wouldn't see him penalized for it. I consider that an excellent outcome.
JeffMesser
Level 8
July 5, 2019
2
@SeaGreenEyez I understand they have discretion to exercise, but they are still expected to do a job. Pressure must be applied to the legislators, not the ones enforcing the bills.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.