Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
His actions were against the law. However, the law was created to protect the innocent. The law failed - resulting in the death of his two sons. An impotent law is no law at all.
|
How did the law fail? He never had the chance to be subjected to it! Laws don't stop behavior - they provide punishment for it.
Everyone, even those we know are guilty, is entitled to due process. Vigilantism undermines one of the core tenets of our justice system - the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Citizens don't have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. That's anarchy.
Quote:
|
Charge him for murder. In the US - he would likely go free. The reason - jury nullification. If the law failed him and his family - why should it stand to further punish him and his family for its own failure.
|
Technically, jury nullification would never play into it. Jury nullification is a way of expressing disagreement with a law by refusing to convict someone guilty of breaking said law on the grounds that it should never have been put on the books in the first place. I really doubt anyone is going to say that the law against murder is a bad one.
Refusing to convict someone ≠ jury nullification.