749
Luigi Mangione’s sweater sells out at Nordstrom one day after court appearance
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
749 points (98.0% liked)
Not the Onion
2203 readers
179 users here now
For true stories that are so ridiculous, that you could have sworn it was an !theonion worthy story.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They do, indeed. However, the "written law" includes the sixth amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the accused the right to a jury of their peers. Peers. The purpose of that right is to ensure that We The People are the ones determining if a person should be punished for a particular action. Not a government agent, or legal professional.
The flip side of the 6th amendment guarantee to the accused is that the juror owes that duty to the accused, and the juror is constitutionally empowered to reach a decision.
Constitutional powers supersede legislated law. The juror is not beholden to legislated law. Indeed, if they feel that strictly applying a lower law results in an injustice, they have a constitutionally-imposed duty to reject the short-sighted legislated law.
Right so what part of that would allow them to justify murder?
That question is nonsensical: 1. The jury never has to justify anything; 2. "Murder" is a legislated concept. The jury is not beholden to the legislature, and is constitutionally empowered to reject the laws they create. They do have to follow the law, but the law includes the constitution that demands and empowers them to make their decision as laypersons.
Where the jury feels that enforcing the legislated law would be an injustice, they are free to rule "not guilty", even if they believe the accused's actions violate that law.
To more directly answer your question, though: If the jury felt that the healthcare extortion industry was completely out of control and a clear and present danger to society in general, they could determine that the legislated prohibition against killing did not contemplate this particular killing. They could determine that the accused does not deserve to be convicted just because the legislature was shortsighted in the way they wrote the law. I'm not saying the law is actually shortsighted, nor am I saying that the jury should nullify. I'm saying that they could "uphold the law as written" and elect to acquit him under the authority conveyed to them, in the "written law" of the 6th amendment.