Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Centaurus A: not guilty
Felucia: He's guilty
Mars: Yeah dude is guilty
Milky Way: how does the statute define "in possession" and "on-person"?
Tollana: I would vote that he was guilty.
Jakku: guilty based on the colloquial understanding of the words in the instructions
Sateda: Not guilty
Tatooine: Prime case for jury nullification
Triton: I would vote guilty. The statute is clear, and this appears to be a strict liability offense.
Alderaan: Guilty. He met the elements.
Luna: guilty under the interpretation of the statute set out by the Mass court judge
Whirlpool: I would vote not guilty and engage in jury nullification because I am a prison abolitionist and don't believe in criminalization.
Belhaven: guilty based on the jury instructions which lack a certain mental state. But it doesn't reflect a guilty mind (which is concerning). However, lack of knowledge isn't enough to be found not guilty (which is concerning).
Bespin: Not guilty. This is an extreme prosecution of a minor error.
Proteus: frustrated by the mens rea here. and by the knowledge of the statute. how was it publicized? not guilty
Tollana: He had constructive notice that the law was going to be coming into effect. He could of had that from the law itself, his father, or maybe even others who engaged in the sport.
Craag An: I vote guilty because the judge told me I had to vote guilty if he met those elements.
Saturn: The elements are determined by the statute: was Calvin in possession of a weapon without registration on his person? I would vote guilty. He can seek relief through other means (perhaps constitutional challenges to the statute), but the rule of law demands that the jury faithfully fulfill its mission as an accurate fact finder.
Luyten 726-8B: Not Guilty. Jury Nullification would work perfectly for this situation as the law is simply unjust. The kid is merely hunting and it is unlikely that he knew about the law or could be expected to know about the law.
Mahasim: Guilty according to the jury instruction. The judge did not say anything about mens rea in the jury instruction. The result is morally outrageous, but required by the judge's instruction.
Death Star: Guilty based on a plain understanding of the statute
Asuras: guilty based on jury instructions which seems to be strict liability
Jupiter: Guilty - based on the statute.
Proxima Centauri: Guilty. He meets all the requirements of guilt under the statute
Andromeda: Guilty, guns should honestly just be banned.
Orilla: Technically the case meets the elements given to us, but the statute does not include a scienter element. According to US v. Balint (1922), a guilty mind is a necessary element in a criminal charge even if not explicit in the statute
Winneburg: Not guilty
Whirlpool: My position is same as before--not guilty.
Tethys: I still prefer a mistrial
Venus: Still guilty.
Sunflower: My position remains guilty.
Duén Canell: I still believe he's guilty.
Winneburg: Not guilty
Phobos: Still not guilty
Umbriel: I'd vote not guilty.I think jury nullification is a powerful check on prosecutorial discretion. I see that it can be abused but I think overall the jury should be able to read in a justice element to "guilty"
Milky Way: not guilty
Orilla: My thoughts have not changed on the case. I would still vote not guilty in an attempt to nullify the jury in the face of an unjust law.
Abydos: Not guilty
Jupiter: Guilty (but can be convinced)
Rigel: I don't know if my perspective has changed a whole lot regarding jury nullification. There are times where it seems like it would be good, and there are times where it seems like it would be quite problematic. If it's something that we want more frequently in the system, you just have to accept that there are going to times where it frustrates you.
Craag An: I changed from guilty to not guilty.
Ganymede: I changed mine from guilty to not guilty
Luna: I don't think my feelings on the case have changed, but even reading a bit about jury nullification empowered me to vote my conscience instead of the letter of the law
Pinwheel: I would still vote guilty.
Tollana: Guilty (for policy reasons)
Callisto: not guilty
Death Star: I've changed my response from guilty to not guilty.
Blackeye: I’d still vote not guilty. But I’m still not convinced that it’s a good idea to publicize the fact that juries can disregard instructions.
Centaurus A: still not guilty.
Belhaven: Not guilty. I think jury nullification is a defense mechanism in a world where biases already exist and those with the least amount of power need every tool they can.
Ariel: My thoughts did change and I would now vote them not guilty because I think jury nullification can be a powerful tool to bring justice.
Andromeda: Not Guilty. I think we should probably focus much more on voting in legislators who will pass better laws and remove bad ones, like these mandatory minimums.
Luyten 726-8A: Not guilty. Yesterday I responded without Jury nullification in mind. I think it can be a useful way to address injustices in the system due to misuse of prosecutorial discretion
Triton: Still vote guilty
Nilfgaard: I was pretty sure guilty was the way to go, but the argument about prosecutorial discrétion might persuade me the other way. I still worry about allowing juries to pick and choose who the law applies to, especially as a largely white pool
Venus: I agree that if juries have the right to nullify verdicts then they should be informed of that right - seems silly to give it to them otherwise. But I question whether juries should have that right in the first place. I'm ambivalent about their role in the system generally.
Sateda: Still not guilty. My position that jury nullification is a necessary part of the criminal jury trial system stands. I have played a significant role in putting more than 5 people in prison at trial. Having been a part of wielding that immense power makes clear to me how necessary jury nullification is.
Messier 83: I would likely still vote guilty, but I'm not necessarily opposed to jury nullification in all circumstances. The individual did not own a firearm permit. The jury is indeed a sovereign body, but likely should not diverge from the law simply because it is not convinced of the law's justice. It needs to be an exceptionally unjust situation.
Bespin: Still not guilty, though I see more legitimacy concerns with nullificaiton. Jury nullification points to the republican (small r) and democratic (small d) tensions in a country as big as ours. If the idea of jury nullification is that it prevents members of a society from enforcing what they consider to be an unjust law, you do end up with situations like the post-Reconstruction South, where lynching was unfortunately widespread. It seems like society was not interested in convicting these white men; the lack of conviction had local democratic legitimacy, maybe, but the South was an anomalous region within the country, which otherwise viewed the actions as heinous. In a large democracy, what is the right lever for enforcing social norms and beliefs? Should it be the rigid enforcement of jury behavior across geographies? Should it be politics and the electoral process? Or, should democracy be suspended in those regions while national priorities are enforced by the bayonet/police?