Agnostic.com

4 1

What do you think? Unable to reach a verdict? Ridiculous. The verdict should have been not guilty. [theguardian.com]

ToolGuy 9 July 5
Share

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.

0

Glad justice was served Pissed they did it to begin with just racist

bobwjr Level 10 July 5, 2019
1

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?

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.

2

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.

@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.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:369937
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.