“While I appreciate the author’s work to create a more equal justice system, this policy needs to be part of budget discussions,” Newsom said in his veto message. “With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure”
The Judicial Council has estimated that the expanded program would cost the state between $4 million and $9 million a year. The veto means the San Francisco program will end this year.
Honest to god, it’s in the court system’s best interest to literally grovel at the feet of potential jury members and treat them like royalty. The fact that they don’t even get so much as a non-insulting amount of monetary compensation for their time is really just cruelty for the sake of it.
Juries do not need to convict regardless of whether the evidence proves the defendant comitted the crime. It is fully their right to vote however they want for whatever reason they want. That is the right to jury nullification. The justice system prevents that from happening by thoroughly screening jurors. Under the threat of perjury, the courts check each prospective juror for not just intention of jury nullification, but even mere knowledge of its existence as a right.
The only thing preventing the knowledge and justification for jury nullification from spreading to most every potential juror like wildfire is the recognition of legitimacy and respect for the US government, its institutions, and its reactionary laws. If jurors view the court as evil and illegitimate, then they’re sure as hell not going to sit back and send people to prison on the basis of laws widely despised by the majority of American citizens.
Policies like the criminalization of drug possession and charging anyone who has ever had so much as a miscarriage with murder are already massively unpopular. They could easily become de facto unenforceable because it takes only one juror to hang the verdict. Just 1/12th of all potential jurors would need to be willing to use jury nullification and accept a small risk of perjury charges in order to save an innocent person from life ruining charges.
Yeah I’m spit balling with my post but it’s legitimately a thing we should be pointing out more. The jury is a bit of a weak link in the chain of oppression we have here, I don’t know if there’s been a movement calling it out before
Why? Court best interest is to get plea deals, and long wait times and accompanying lawyer’s fee is the shit to fuck poor people
Because if potential jurors were to stop seeing the court as legitimate in sufficient numbers, they’d be much more willing to use jury nullification against obviously horrific laws. Defendants in such cases would never receive guilty verdicts and therefore lawyers would advise to never take a plea deal in such an easy to sympathize with case.
Just hooting from the balconies here but, in agreement with cosecantohi, it’s the random selection bias not being neutered yet lies a strength within the jury