...I don't quite understand this. Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.
You cited nothing, and your claims are impossible to back with reasonable facts. I suspect you haven't even read about the case (though I see in some of your other comments that you claim to be familiar with the facts).
You want us to be "better", and I agree that anger after the fact is less ideal than anger beforehand. But making ridiculous statements about guilt or innocence is just as bad as condemning the prosecutors for murder.
Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne
Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.
The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature.
Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility.
I also think it’s illusory to believe that jury nullification is in any kind of way a meaningful escape. It’s a fluke, nothing more.
Yes they can.[1]
> Jury nullification occurs when juries acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.
I do not agree with kristenlee but I did want to bring up at a jury can let someone walk who is technically guilty.
Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to post the same as 2 other people I read the article then came back to read the comments and I didn't see the other comments as I hadn't refreshed the page
1. That would have bankrupted him anyway.
2. He was guilty, as far as the law book is concerned.
