The highest* criminal court in England & Wales, the Court of Appeal, has come up with a judgment holding that what is called ‘jury nullification’ isn’t permitted, it’s called ‘jury equity’ by some here. The duty of the jury is to return a verdict on the evidence, jurors (who are compelled to serve and take an oath to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence) must follow the law and the judge’s directions. The proceedings arose from some environmental criminals who vandalised a bank and sought to defend their actions on the basis of something like that the bank’s shareholders would have consented to the damage if they’d known it would protect the environment. This is technically a defence in English law, but on the facts, none of the accused mentioned this in interview, all raised it in court and it may well have been found to have been a contrived defence, we don’t know why, because juries do not give reasons or discuss the case afterwards.
The case considered the landmark decision of Bushell’s Case from 1670, the juror who refused to convict Quakers William Penn and William Mead and his writ of habeas corpus was granted, after the trial judge fined and imprisoned him for not returning a guilty verdict.
Since Mr Bushell wrongly did porridge for saving Quakers, the law has moved on and in England, it is forbidden to mention jury nullification in court.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment held that whilst jurors have to give verdicts according to the law and the evidence, there is no mechanism to punish them if they do not do so (provided they actually follow the rules and are either split with no verdict, or acquit). The Court said this:
Bushell’s Case may be best understood as recognising an immunity from punishment in respect of their decision as to what verdict to return, rather than a right to return verdicts in defiance of the evidence.
A distinction that might be lost on some, but it means that the concept of nullification cannot be raised in court as part of a defence.
And would it be wrong to think that in the States, ‘jury nullification’ is seen as a pro-liberty stance as a check on an overly powerful State, whereas ‘jury equity’ in the UK is seen as a way to undermine property rights and allow socialist violence to go unchecked?
* The Supreme Court is based in England, but it sits as a ‘UK’ court. It could yet hear an appeal from this case if an appeal were brought.
Mention jury nullification to a jury in the States, and you can go to jail, depending on the judge.
But it remains a huge problem in, say, the Washington D.C. area, where attempts to prosecute progressives run into jurors who vote by tribe rather than evidence. Hard for a Republican DOJ to get convictions there, and so much government (and thus gov corruption) is based there that the DOJ looks hard for any jurisdictional hook to get cases transferred out, or initiated elsewhere.
Sort of jury nullification nullification.
@bobby b
so much government (and thus gov corruption)
Of course a solution to this is to move large swaths of government out of DC to the states, another thing Trump has promised but never really delivered on. The argument “government officials need to be near each other for meetings” seems to forget the existence of Zoom.
Were we to do that, move a few agencies to Nebraska or South Carolina, there might actually end up being one or two Republicans working for the federal government.
Sort of jury nullification nullification.
Does that mean a challenge to a jurisdictional transfer by the defendant is a jury nullification nullification nullification? And if such a decision is overturned on appeal it is a jury nullification nullification nullification nullification?
What can a judge do if a jury returns a not guilty verdict when the judge believes the evidence and the law indicates the accused is guilty, and no one has said anything about nullification or equity? Perhaps the judge might ask them to go back and reconsider their verdict and they do so, but again they return a no guilty verdict. The judge perhaps, I don’t know, may direct the jury to return a guilty verdict and the jury foreman respectfully asks the judge “what are we here for exactly, if this is not a trial by jury but a trial by a judge”?
One way of avoiding jury nullification is to avoid juries altogether… oh.
@Discovered Joys
One way of avoiding jury nullification is to avoid juries altogether… oh.
In the United States you generally have that option — a bench trial where the judge decides guilt or innocence. But do you really want an agent of the government deciding who to send to jail without any checks or balances from the public? Trial by jury is an ancient right that has kept the government in check for a thousand years. Although it sometimes goes wrong it is generally speaking a good final check against the power of the state. We do not, surely, want the state to be able to disappear someone without public scrutiny.
To give a current example, the DoJ is trying to prosecute Lietia James, AG of New York for a variety of federal crimes related to the crime de jour, mortgage fraud. It seems to me she is pretty obviously guilty or at least indictable, but the government is having a very hard time getting a grand jury to return an indictment. I think, broadly speaking, this is a good thing. It holds the state to a high standard before they can apply “the process is the punishment” to a citizen. Of course there is a downside, as in this case, where the guilty go free. But better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished.
Some years ago the people who boasted (yes boasted – in a book) that they had helped the traitor George Blake escape from prison and get to Moscow, were found “Not Guilty” by a leftist jury.
The trouble is not a jury ruling according conscience – but rather a MALFORMED conscience twisted and mutated by decades of leftist propaganda turning human beings into monsters (such as the monsters who made up they jury in the “we sprung Blake” case).
Nor is this old history – as only a few months ago a Labour Councillor who traveled across London to tell an angry mob to “cut the throats” of “right wing” people was found “Not Guilty” by a leftist jury – who, of course, would have a “right winger” GUILTY if he had told an angry mob to “cut the throats” of leftists.
However, judges can also have a MALFORMED conscience twisted by many years of leftist indoctrination (starting with their education).
So here we are – in the position warned against by President John Adams centuries ago.
As John Adams pointed out – free institutions, including juries, only work when people are basically decent.
What happens when they are NOT? When people can NOT be trusted to be basically decent.
Well we are finding out – with “Green” lunatics who openly commit criminal damage found “Not Guilty” by morally corrupt juries.
And, again, judges can also be morally corrupt.
Nor is this problem confined to the United Kingdom.
The morally corrupt juries of American cities (such as New York, Washington D.C. and the Twin Cities area of Minnesota) have become infamous – with giggling jurors finding the guilty not-guilty and finding the innocent guilty – knowing full well they are doing this, and laughing about it, judging cases on the basis of the politics of the accused, not the facts of the case – and openly doing that.
And judges throwing out cases against obviously guilty people – because they approve of the politics of the guilty people. And even removing the Prosecutor – because they do not approve of her bringing cases against leftists. And appointing a “pet” U.S. Attorney of their own – the judges appointing the U.S. Attorney, to serve the “Progressive” establishment.
The people of once moderate Virginia not only elected an evil man as Attorney General – a person who wrote about how he wanted to murder conservatives, and murder their CHILDREN. They also elected, as Governor, an ex CIA person whose very first action was (of course) to reinstate “DEI” – i.e. systematic racial and sexual discrimination against straight-white-men (which violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act – indeed violates the 1954 “Brown” case where the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 that a State or local government must NOT discriminate on the basis of race).
And who was elected deputy Governor? A follower of the Crescent Moon religious law – doctrines that are not compatible with the Common Law or the Constitution of the United States (the 1st Amendment upholds Freedom of Religion – it is not compatible with someone whose religious law states that any person who leaves their religion must-be-killed, and that anyone who “mocks” the founder of their religion must-be-killed).
The John Adams point again – what do you do when most people have been morally corrupted, when they are no longer capable of taking part in free institutions?
I do not know – I do not know the answer.
Slightly at a tangent to this, but I see that eminent English lawyer and fierce critic of lockdowns – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSzU6Ehu-a0 – Lord (Jonathan) Sumption, has argued that the jury system in England and Wales should not be put on a pedestal. In fact, he says, a flaw in the system is that when a jury returns its verdict, it isn’t required to state its reasoning, only say what its decision is. This limits the basis on which a decision to convict can be analysed if the matter goes to appeal. I freely admit I hadn’t thought of this point before. The journalist Fraser Nelson heard Lord S’s speech on the issue and gives an account that is not behind a paywall.
Lord Sumption accepts that there is an important “civic duty” element worth protecting if that is what the general public want. He argues that in long fraud cases and other lengthy cases, the multi-year waiting times for cases to go to court is an injustice, and there does need to be a way to reduce the backlog.
This is certainly one of those cases where I am willing to listen to contrary arguments. This is a debate about process, not an abstraction around “justice”.
I do not know – I do not know the answer.
Lie back and think of England.
Johnathan Pearce – and what happens if the judges are as morally corrupted as the juries? A corrupted society has consequences.
If the basic virtues, as Aristotle, and others, defined them, are no longer valued by many people? Due to mind twisting indoctrination from the education system and-so-on.
Budge Hinman.
No – I do think I will do that Sir.
Still it could be worse…..
“Monsters of the jury – have you reached your verdict?”
“Hail Satan! Hail Satan! Hail Satan!” reply the jury.
“Order in court!” says the judge – pausing in his munching of a freshly aborted baby.
@Johnathan Pearce
jury returns its verdict, it isn’t required to state its reasoning, only say what its decision is. This limits the basis on which a decision to convict can be analysed if the matter goes to appeal.
INAL but as I understand it an appeal is based on the rulings and instructions the judge gives not the reasoning of the verdict. The initial court is a finder of fact and their findings are sacrosanct, all that an appeal can do is determine if the trial was conducted fairly according to the law and the rulings and instructions were correct according to the law. An appeals court examines the behavior of the lawyers and the judge, not the jury. Consequently, I’m not sure the jury’s reasoning matters much in appeal.
So, for example, if the judge issues instructions to the jury saying “you should find this guy guilty because one time I was playing poker with him and he cheated, so he is obviously a bad man”, the appeals court would probably call for a new trial not because the jury relied on the judge’s instructions to determine their guilty vote, but because the judge acted inappropriately. It would be the judge’s actions that were judged, not the jury’s.
Moreover, a jury is a group of people, surely many people come to their decision for many different reasons, so I’m not sure how that is even possible.
No answer to the problem of morally corrupted juries and morally corrupted judges.
A morally corrupted society has consequences.
Bad philosophy, eventually, circulates down from the elite to the ordinary people.
And one of those consequences is juries, and judges, who do not care too much of they find the innocent guilty, or the guilty not guilty = if (for example) it, supposedly, serves “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Mr Jeremy Bentham).
You are not going to find much about “death before dishonour”, or “let justice be done, though the heavens fall”, in the works of such writers as Mr Hobbes, Mr Hume or Mr Bentham – and, eventually, a corrupted elite becomes a corrupted people.
A fish goes rotten from the head.
At the time people laughed at Herbert Marcuse when he argued that “reactionaries” had no right to Freedom of Speech.
Now this is the mainstream position in most Western nations – judges and juries eager to punish “racists”, “Islamophobes”, “homophobes” (yes massive contradiction there – but they do not notice it) and-so-on.
What starts with a corrupt elite does not stop with them – the intellectual corruption spreads in society.
David Roberts:
Nothing. The answer is found at paragraph 51 of the linked judgment, given by the second most senior criminal judge in England (concurred with by his colleagues):
JP:
Precisely, and appeals turn on analysis of the judge’s summing up and directions to the jury, what the evidence was and how the case was conducted, any procedural irregularities, such as admission of inadmissible evidence (usually a call for the judge) or someone on the jury knowing someone involved and not declaring it, or simply a point of law, that what the accused was found to have done could not amount to the crime of which he was found guilty, taking the case at its highest.
Just as a small point – in the USA, while a judge cannot overturn a jury’s acquittal, he can overturn a conviction. We are biased in favor of liberty in this way.
And what happens if a judge dismisses the case when the judge knows (knows) that the accused is guilty, but agrees with the politics of the accused.
The whole discussion is based on the assumption that the jury and judge are acting on the basis of a properly formed conscience – it is increasingly the case that they (judge and jury) are operating on the basis of a radically malformed conscience – due to many years of intellectual corruption of moral reason, which started with the elite – but has moved to much (a fairly large proportion) of the population.
The corruption of society has consequences – and these consequences, should be honestly faced. We should not pretend that things are what they were.
Paul, to give you perhaps a glimmer of hope for the future, my I hope is that we can all help bring about a future of multiple, ubiquitous and Open Source AIs, where all education includes access to several AI tutors, who often argue, mostly good naturedly, with each other, in front of their pupils.
You should know that my thinking on AIs, which may seem odd to you, is heavily influenced by Fredrik Pohl’s Heechee Saga novels of the 1970s.
Or, what shield is a jury in Mordor, if it be composed of Orcs?
The only true safeguard for liberty is attitude, or disposition towards it, and the force to ensure that disposition is enforced against its foes.
@Mr Ed
The only true safeguard for liberty is attitude, or disposition towards it, and the force to ensure that disposition is enforced against its foes.
Another safeguard is structure. The US Constitution has done a remarkable job protecting liberty and it took nearly 200 years to wear it down. At a fundamental level the genius of the constitution is to break the government up into many competing parts, each with their own defined powers. It plays into the very nature of humans and of megalomaniacs especially. Of course eventually it gets centralized, and a constitution becomes more like a set of speed bumps, but nothing lasts forever.
But to your broader point — which I agree with — at the root is education, and we have turned education administration over to some of the worst people. It is an insane idea that a people who would reject and fight against government tyranny would send their children to be educated by that same government; and to some of the most left wing servants of the government.
To extend your Tolkien analogy, it is kind of like adding Sauron to the Fellowship of the Ring. After all, he knows the way to Mordor better than most.
If we are to have a free people we need to get government out of our schools. Perhaps tax credits to help pay for education, but the idea that they run the schools is about the worst idea possible, certainly in our modern age.
Paul here are my, perhaps naïve, assumptions.
Open source AI creation will be highly competitive. Open source prevents a
monopoly of AIs, by any entity. The AIs that have access to the most information will be the most competitive. AIs will not always arrive at the same conclusions or any conclusion. People will have to choose. The truth wins in the end, hopefully.
To return to the point of this thread. Judges will also be tutored by AIs.
@David Roberts
The AIs that have access to the most information will be the most competitive.
FWIW, I don’t think that is true. The AIs that will be most successful are the ones with access to the most power, as in electricity. I’d highly recommend listening to Musk’s interview at Davos this year with the utterly loathsome Larry Fink. Musk has some great things to say. But there is a veiled thing in there that a lot of people may well miss.
He points out that the chip shortage is coming to an end and very soon we will have more chips than we have power to run them. (This BTW is an example of the free market meeting the limitations of highly regulated government controlled industries.) And it is why the future is in space. Spacecraft have access to vast amounts of power and cooling and have the ability to communicate data at very high speed over very long distances with laser interlinks. It is a bit too expensive right now, but is coming fast. And surely it is obvious the person who is vastly more capable of doing this than anyone else. That would be the guy who has utterly transformed access to space, and who has built one of the most powerful AIs on the planet. SpaceX is planning to be able to launch ten thousand Starships a year. To put that in perspective, in total since the beginning of spaceflight there have perhaps been 7000 launches total. Or to put it another way — in total about 40,000 tons of material have been launched into space. That corresponds to about 400 starship launches, or about a fortnight’s launches at that cadence.
Why such a high cadence? It sure makes sense if you are launching data centers and data centers are running the world.
What that means is that Musk is positioned to utterly dominate the AI industry. Certainly in the west who are faffing around with windmills. China may be able to compete because they are willing to lay waste to large amounts of land and convert them to solar farms. But Musk is the man to beat.
And what is the other component of this new Star Trek future? Well it is anthropomorphic robots, and Tesla are again WAY in the lead on this area and really the only organization in the world able to generate tens to hundreds of millions of consumer grade robots. They say a day is coming when people will forget Tesla makes cars.
So the two foundational technology pillars of the new world order, AI and robotics, are set to be totally dominated by Musk’s companies. These are world transforming times and he is better positioned to dominate than all the rest of the world put together.
It is wonderous and terrifying at the same time. Musk is plainly far more interested in making the world a better place than he is in power. God help us if private equity gets a hold of his companies.
FWIW, I am investing in Tesla stock. I’ll buy as much as I can on the dip.
@Fraser Orr
I chatted with the Gemini AI about your point. I initiated the topics of Moore’s Law and Julian Simon. Here is it’s final sentence.
Moore’s Law providing the technical efficiency and Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource” providing the human (and now artificial) drive to turn bottlenecks into breakthroughs. The idea that energy scarcity will dictate the future of AI seems much less certain when you account for the history of human innovation.
@David Roberts
Moore’s Law providing the technical efficiency and Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource” providing the human (and now artificial) drive to turn bottlenecks into breakthroughs. The idea that energy scarcity will dictate the future of AI seems much less certain when you account for the history of human innovation.
You asked Gemini about my contention that xAI will take over the AI space? Isn’t that kind of like asking a windmill maker if we should burn more fossil fuels? (JK, I don’t actually think AIs are self interested in that way.)
Unfortunately, Gemini forgot that besides Julian Simon and Gordon Moore we also have to contend with Humphrey Appleby. Certainly the mind of man would indeed overcome constraints on energy, but energy is quickly becoming one of the most heavily regulated businesses in the world due to ginned up fears over CAGW. Of course not in China, which is why they are still in with a chance against Musk.
But one of those innovative solutions is to put data centers in space, and that is something really only Elon Musk can do.
It is also worth considering something else here. Throughout history as machines have taken over it has not disadvantaged humans simply because humans moved up to the next cognitive level of task. Hunter gatherers specialized allowing the specialized manufacture of pots or weapons, printing allowed the production of more and varied types of books where energy was concentrated on writing them rather than making them. Computers reduced the complexity of many tasks allowing humans do do more complicated tasks. However, AI changes that, it marks an end, in a sense. When the machines are smarter than the humans we cannot move up to the next cognitive level — we aren’t smart enough. So there really is nowhere else for humans to go. What does that mean? I’m not sure, but most of the assumptions that have played well throughout human history are going to be entirely flipped on their heads over the next decade. What that looks like? I have no idea.
@Fraser Orr
I understood your point to be, “Who or whatever controls the generation of electricity,
controls the implementation and development of AIs”. That is what I asked Gemini to consider.
My apologies for not being clearer and/or misunderstanding your point.
I would not have used Grock, for the reason you indicated.
My response to your last consideration is, “It all depends on what is meant by smart”.
I think that we have our own Godwin’s Law: ‘The longer a thread on a ‘libertarian’ blog, on whatever topic, is, the greater the probability that it will veer off into Space.’. 🙂
David Roberts – it may be so, I do not know enough about technology to have an informed opinion.
Fraser Orr and Mr Ed – yes indeed.
With a judge and jury made up of “Orcs” free institutions, including trial by jury, do not function justly.
This was the point that John Adams (and Roger Sherman – and most, although not all, of the Founders, made) – everything, in the end, depends on the character of the people.
They do not have be saints – but they must not be monsters either.
And, in Minneapolis (to give an example) most people are just no-good – they are bad, they can not be trusted.
And it is the same in many large cities – and the education system is indeed a fundamental factor.
These are not well meaning people like Hubert Humphrey – people who wanted a decent society, but mistakenly thought that a bit more government spending and regulation would help achieve it.
These are people such as Attorney General Keith Ellison or Governor Walz – terrible people.
And the “moderate” Democrats in Virginia are proving to be the same.
Pushing attacks on the 1st and 2nd Amendments – and working to make voting electronic, so that every future election will be rigged.
And, of course, pushing “DEI” – systematic discrimination against straight-white-males.
Jobs on the basis of race, sex, or sexuality – NOT merit.
@David Roberts
My response to your last consideration is, “It all depends on what is meant by smart”.
I think in the context “smart” means “able to solve problems, especially problems with the generation of resources”, nonetheless, I think it is a good question. So, let me respond by asking you a question (one that I have been thinking about a lot myself). Assuming, if you will, AI and robotics as it would be ten years from now, into what niche do you think humans can retreat where their capabilities would be considerably superior to the technologies?
@Fraser Orr
I, we can only speculate, but my view is, that in order to achieve a net positive future, those of us who think about such things, must envisage, discuss, aim and promote a future that we believe is beneficial, whatever that comes to mean. I can not answer coherently here, your question on the role of humanity, other than possibly through the scenario, I mentioned earlier in this thread, described by the Fredrik Pohl novels. If they are not available to you, try asking some AIs about Albert Einstein, an AI, best described in “Beyond the Blue Event Horizon”, which is one of these novels.