SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Later this month, a North Carolina high school student will appear in a state court and face five child pornography-related charges for engaging in consensual sexting with his girlfriend.
What's strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone—the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him. There is no evidence of coercion or further distribution of the images anywhere beyond the two teenagers' phones.
Similarly, the young woman was originally charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor—but was listed on her warrant for arrest as both perpetrator and victim. The case illustrates a bizarre legal quandry that has resulted in state law being far behind technology and unable to distinguish between predatory child pornography and innocent (if ill-advised) behavior of teenagers.
The boy is being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of himself.
[These teens were of the age of consent in North Carolina and could legally have had sex with each other. Juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16 in North Carolina, however, so they are being tried as adults on felony charges of possessing child porn... of themselves. -Ed.]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:34PM
Jury nullification isn't a legal right that jurors possess. The jury is just there to decide whether or not the evidence supports the prosecutions case that the law was broken and the sentencing.
Jurors do not have the right to willfully ignore the law. And with good reason. If the defense attorneys were allowed to play to the juries sympathies and convince them that the crime shouldn't even be a crime, it would break the legal system. The attorneys involved agree not to try and do that, and it's part of the juries responsibilities to just weigh the facts in the case.
The question of whether or not something ought to be legal at all is a question for the various appellate courts to consider.
Or to look at it another way, if juries do nullify, that doesn't change anything. There's still going to be more of those cases going to trial and perhaps the next jury isn't as generous. And ultimately, jury nullification deprives the people involved of justice. I'm sure it's great to not go to prison and to not be listed, but the only way those things ever change is either by court order or legislatively and it's a tough sell to politicians that these things should be fixed. A judge can at least hide behind precedence in most cases.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:09PM
ligten up, francis.
and you happen to be very wrong about the intent of JN. the intent IS th allow common-sense to override uncaring,unfeeling,unjust laws. this is the perfect application of it!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:42PM
Jury nullification exists in so far as some jurors do it. It's not a legal construct and it's something that will rightfully get you thrown off the jury if the judge or the attorneys find out about it.
It's astonishing to me how little respect people have for the law and yet are so unwilling to address the issue in the appropriate venue.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:12PM
The Magna Charta might be deemed a form of jury nullification. The one and only source of "justice" prior to the MC was the judgement of some pompous royal ass. The peasants of the time decided that enough was enough, and insisted that the people have a voice. The royalty yeilded, rather than be executed.
Seeing that our law is directly based on English Common Law - yeah, the PEOPLE decide what the law is, not the ruling class.
In another post, you mention "respect for the law"? I have none. The circus we have today is sometimes entertaining, and sometimes tragic, but it is simply not deserving of respect.
(Score: 3, Informative) by CRCulver on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:37PM
The Magna Carta was something that was drawn up by Canterbury to make peace between the king and a group of disgruntled barons. It was meant to provide a better balance of power between the king and the feudal aristocracy. While the Magna Carta had an iconic status for reformers in later centuries, the peasantry had nothing to do with the Magna Carta, and none of the freedoms it outlined were applicable for the peasantry. How could you not know this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:51PM
How could you not know this?
What can you expect from someone who doesn't use Gamemaker for all their programming needs?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:14PM
It's astonishing to me how little respect people have for the law
What's astonishing is that you're apparently foolish enough to respect the law simply because it is the law.
You're also completely incorrect about jury nullification. It's like arguing that disobeying some unjust laws will inevitably lead to anarchy. It's not true because people generally have brains and tend to obey laws that they see will benefit their well-being (laws against murder, for example). It's not an either-or where you either obey all laws or you disobey all laws. Jury nullification is designed to be another check on government tyranny, and when the other checks fail, it needs to be used. I would not convict someone for challenging the TSA, for instance. The courts have failed to defend the constitution by ruling the TSA unconstitutional, so jury nullification can be used to reduce the harm of government tyranny in situations like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @03:09AM
I respect the law exactly as much as the people tasked with writing it and enforcing it do. That is, not at all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:17PM
Jurors do not have the right to willfully ignore the law.
Maybe not, but they still in all cases have that power.
If the defense attorneys were allowed to play to the juries sympathies and convince them that the crime shouldn't even be a crime, it would break the legal system.
That's an outrageous claim with absolutely no basis. Juries are not going to go around deciding that laws against murder and rape and armed robbery are unjust. But for those laws and prosecutions that are clearly unjust, like this case, the jury isn't breaking the legal system, they are fixing it. They are limiting the state's ability to unjustly prosecute citizens for normative behavior, where there are no victims. No victim, No crime! How many people are in prison today that because they were convicted of a crime where the "victim" was the state itself? They should not be there. The state has a right to prosecute crimes against citizens - the state does NOT have the right to jail its citizens by claiming to be the victim of a crime.
The question of whether or not something ought to be legal at all is a question for the various appellate courts to consider.
With this statement, you have broken the historical basis for not recognizing jury nullification in the US - the principle that it is the people that decide whether or not something ought to be legal. When you give that power to the courts, the only recourse for citizens is jury nullification, just like the situation in the pre-revolutionary US colonies.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:38PM
You don't solve abuses of power by abusing power. Jury nullification just ensures that the issue is never actually dealt with.
It's not an outrageous claim, it's completely true. And just because some people consider a crime to be victimless, does not mean that it is victimless. The state steps in as the victim in cases where the damage is considered to be widespread. It also allows for the state to prosecute in cases where the victim is at risk of being intimidated by the defendant.
The people do have the right to decide whether or not something ought to be illegal. You vote for people that support the things you support. In some parts of the country we even get to directly propose laws as initiatives or the legislators can send things to the public for a vote as a referendum. The jury box is completely the wrong place to be deciding whether or not something should be illegal.
What you're proposing is tantamount to anarchy. We've had a system where jurors did that in a widespread way back in the "good" old days when it was damn near impossible to convict a white person of lynching a black person. The jurors didn't see a problem with that. If we open the door to jurors making their own decisions about what the law should be, there's no telling what they will and won't go for. I highly doubt it will be anything that dramatic in the modern era, but there's still a bunch of people out there that consider GLBT folks to be subhuman, not to mention illegal immigrants, so I wouldn't be surprised if it still happens.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:21PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:50PM
Nullification is the "ancient right" of the jury.
"juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course." -- R. v. Krieger, 2006 SCC 47 (Canada)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:17PM
> Maybe not, but they still in all cases have that power.
Undeniably true. I'd have approached the statement from the direction that jurors have the right to interpret the law such that the spirit and intent of the law is given precedence over its current wording.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:47PM
Jury nullification isn't a legal right that jurors possess.
You might want to check your facts:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#Court_rulings [wikipedia.org]
If a juror indicates during voir dire that they intend to vote to nullify, they will be dismissed. But if the jury as a whole in their secret deliberations comes to that opinion, it is perfectly legal and fully within their rights.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:15PM
Especially the "of your peers" thing.