= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tordmor comments on Ethics of Jury nullification and TDT? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
Thought 3 is where you make a mistake. You're not choosing for jury members who won't convict on hate crimes. You're only choosing for future jury members who have a similar choosing alorithm to yours. The haters obviously don't. Thus the only thing you need to ask yourself is: Do I want future jury members with similar ethics to mine to convict on drug laws or not? And that's your desicion.
Edit: But as Unnamed wrote, the difficult choice is what to say during jury selection.
But, the algorithm itself isn't the same as the values I input into it.
What I mean by that is that I'm going "I think drug laws are unjust... THEREFORE I should refuse to convict in the case of a violation of those laws"
So is the "If I, personally, think a set of laws are seriously unjust, should I essentially ignore them when I'm a jury member?"
(note, my natural initial inclination was "yes, nullification of drug laws is a good idea", with the only question being "do I lie when asked in the first place if I'd be willing to convict on a drug offense or if I'd heard of nullification" etc... But once I got to thinking about it, to the actual algorithm I'm effectively running, well, hence my eventual asking here for advice)