If you are in a state that criminalizes abortion and you were selected for a jury in such a case, would you engage in jury nullification?

[zagor]

Jury nullification as in if you found a law so fundamentally wrong that you would vote to acquit the defendant even if the evidence showed they were clearly in violation.

I realize that most cases don't go to a jury trial because the prosecution threatens such dire consequences that the defendant takes a plea bargain to avoid the most severe penalties.

Fortunately this is a rhetorical question for me as I live in a state that would be the last one to ban abortion. But if I were to find myself in such a situation I would definitely vote to acquit.

[Juxtapose]

Oh absolutely, jury nullification is one of the only powers we have left as civilians!

[Snakeyes7]

Yes. I think abortion is wrong but a top down change is not the way to go about it.

[AviatorTom]

A jury member's duty is to listen to the evidence and then make a decision based on the law, whether you agree with that law or not. During the voir dire jury selection, it's important to honestly answer the questions, and let it be known that you would acquit based on your dislike for the law. You would then be dismissed and not sit on that jury. To say or do anything else would be a disservice to you, the defendant and the justice system.

Remember that the defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. No jury member should have any pre-trial ideas of how they should act.

[zagor]

It can depend on whether the question is explicitly asked and how it is worded. For example, if you were asked whether that are instances where you believe that abortion should be illegal, and you are thinking of when someone goes into labor, and then the case turns out to be one in which the person was in the first trimester...

[BeMuse]

Nope. I strongly believe in my right to life. I would never consent to waiving my own right to life, thus I wouldn't support someone else who stripped another person's right to life. I might make an exception when a person has already taken one or more lives or has committed treason against their country which ultimately could lead to the denial of American's unalienable rights, but I would have to consider the facts at trial heavily before agreeing to capital punishment over life imprisonment.

[Guy13]

That would be an abuse of Precepts and the System of Law and Order in the Republic of America. It is wrong and undercutting our Republic structure is not Good. A BAD act is not corrected by doing another BAD act. Think about how illogical what you are saying is... at least it is to me. This is not mathematics where two negatives multiplied equal positive

[zagor]

It is actually acceptable and legal, contrary to the usual jury instructions, to follow personal moral beliefs when making a decision. Prosecutors (or defense attorneys, depending on the specific instance) try to eliminate such potential jurors by, for instance, excluding those personally opposed to the death penalty in all instances for capital cases.

Would you say the same if someone was judging a case of a defendant accused of harboring Jews in 1930's Germany?

[zagor]

I guess that would be 1940's Germany.

[Guy13]

You are sugar coating it and your Intention was clearly stated. Do not back-off it now please. If you have your issue then that one does not serve on jury. Two Negatives do not make a Positive nor does a Negative act justify another Negative action to "set right". It is not difficult AND i am sure you are easily following my thinking.

[zagor]

If one feels that an injustice is being done and has the power to do something about it, then I think it is an obligation to act accordingly.

[zagor]

Now if you were explicitly questioned about it in the jury selection and lied, then that would be another matter.

[Avicenna]

You’ve left out specific details on what the defendant did and was charged with (defendants are not infrequently overcharged and/or prosecutors pile on charges).

[zagor]

Someone charged with getting or getting or aiding and abetting an abortion. I thought that was clear. I don't mean extreme cases like 3 days before birth.

[Avicenna]

Medical professionals or non-medical professionals?

[zagor]

Could be either. Hypothetically under some laws someone could be charged if they gave someone a ride out of state for an abortion. Or the pregnant woman herself.

[jshm2]

Don't be daft. Also there is no such clause as "jury nullification" you made that shit up.

[goaded]

He didn't make it up, it's happened many times in the past, look it up.

[Anonymous]

That’s the beauty of being on a jury. The decision to convict or acquit is solely up to them. I’d have no problem finding someone not guilty if I thought the law in question was unfair.

[EnglishEuropean]

That's not a situation that would arise in a civilised country.

[zagor]

Don't you have a jury system in England?

[EnglishEuropean]

Yes, we also have the right to abortion.

[zagor]

So do we, at least where I live.

They also have some rather ridiculous, "uncivilized" laws in England as I recall.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I would. I don't personally believe in abortion, but I also don't believe in pushing my beliefs on other people (<-- except that one)

[OddBeMe]

Toughy. Because I am 100% against any abortion criminalization.

[Dargil]

I would find according to the law.

[fonduegirl]

Yeah. Laws can be erroneous.

[KrakenAttackin]

You would be excluded from the jury.

[BillyBalls]

What does one have to do with the other?

[LazerBean]

Nope!

[joeldalton]

Nope