The Denver Post has produced one of the worst editorials I've ever had the misfortune of reading. This in response to the Mark Paschall jury nullification story I wrote about here. Some lowlights:
In Paschall's case, the GOP needs to ask itself if this man - who has been handing out free booklets on jury nullification, a corrosive abrogation of the rule of law and the fundamental concepts of American freedom - really represents the "party of Lincoln."
I wonder what Lincoln thought about jury nullification?
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln.
Well, that sounds like he might like the idea. The GOP, sadly, might not.
Paschall may attempt to spin his advocacy of this nonsense until he is blue in the face, but that will not change the shameful, blood-stained place jury nullification holds in American history. For the record, jury nullification was the mechanism by which Ku Klux Klansmen and other bigots escaped justice when they murdered African-Americans.
It's also the mechanism by which people assisting runaway slaves 'escaped justice.' How do the Denver Post editors feel about that?
Jurors becoming a law unto themselves paves the way for the total destruction of the laws that guarantee freedom for all Americans and that protect the few and the powerless from the many and the powerful.
Paschall may attempt to ascribe some high moral purpose to the concept, but he is deluding himself and the public if he believes this idea has any place in a modern, civilized society.
Garbage. Jury nullification is one of the last lines of defense for freedom in a civilized society. That's one of the main reasons the jury system was created in the first place, to rein in government's immoral or unjust laws. Paschall may be a hopeless theocrat but the Post editors seem to have no clue about the concepts of freedom or democracy.
Religion is the basis of many people's conscience and provides guidance in their daily lives. But not all people have the same or even any religious beliefs. Hence, we have laws under the Constitution to govern the affairs of the people.
As I explained, the jury nullification movement is not religion based, and the Post misleads by implying it's so.
The example of bigots' use of jury nullification is an isolated example of a good concept used badly. Democracy isn't always pretty. Much more often nullification is used to minimize the damage of bad laws, most recently in drug war cases and tax prosecutions. It's a juror's DUTY to vote for acquittal when the juror recognizes that the defendant is not worthy of the punishment he will receive, even when that defendant might be objectively guilty of the law. The runaway slave cases are perfect example of this. Also, the famous 1670 case of William Penn, who was objectively guilty of failure to practice the Anglican religion, but who was spared beheading by a jury with a conscience.
One of the most famous modern cases of jury nullification is the Laura Kriho case which happened here in Colorado. As a juror Ms. Kriho refused to vote guilty in a drug dealing case in Gilpin county. An enraged judge then levied contempt charges in Ms. Kriho, which were eventually overturned. Kriho was doing exactly as a juror should, judging that the law itself was unfair, and refusing to convict. Modern trials stack the juries during voir dire, so this rarely happens. The Jury Nullification movement, led by The Fully Informed Jury Association, is attempting to change the way juries are selected so that juries have a more representative selection of society, rather than the carefully selected people who now sit on juries in these cases. Paul Grant was Kriho's lawyer and is on the advisory board for FIJA. He lives right here in the Denver area and has written opinion pieces on other topics for the newspapers. I wonder if the Post editors bothered to ask him about the situation, since he is a leading expert and is right here in our back yard.
Sadly, the Denver Post seems unaware of the rich pro-freedom tradition of jury nullification, and thousands of people will have little education on the subject other than this woefully mis-informed editorial.
Posted by Walter at October 6, 2003 10:17 AMI didn't realize that jury nullification was used by abolitionists, thanks for writing about it again.
Posted by: Matt Moore at October 6, 2003 11:45 AMI used this particular editorial as an example in my entry about how the Post's editorial page has gone downhill since we lost Sue O'Brien. Jury nullification aside, this piece was just written badly-- and it is just one example of many I have seen in the past few months.
I used to read the editorial section religiously, but lately I find the pieces to be rather bland, disorganized, and grammatically suspect. The Post has become rather excruciating to read at times.
Posted by: Michael Ditto at October 7, 2003 01:57 AMWalter,
You might want to take a look at what Orcinus (dneiwert.blogspot.com) has to say about jury nullification. He think's it's some kind of fascist threat that originated in the Posse Comitatus, no kidding!
I posted some lengthy comments to the jury nullification post on The Modulator (www.themodulator.org) on Orcinus, dissecting the mindset he and others that he appears to be aligned with and getting his ideology from (Chip Berlet, Coalition for Human Dignity, the Militia Watchdog, Paul de Armond, and their ilk) are operating under.