Jury Nullification

[Colpy]

Has anyone an opinion on this case?

A Saskatchewan man is on trial.

His daughter, just out of drug rehab, moved in with a known drug dealer.

Pa went to get her out, she wouldn't leave, he shot said drug dealer 5 times.

The case is before the jury.

The judge has instructed the jury that "acquittal is NOT an option"

IMHO, this is outrageous!

The purpose of juries is to see justice done, NOT the law enforced. We seem to have forgotten that.

Opinions?

 

[hermanntrude]

I would have thought any jury with three brain cells between them would realise that a man who shot another 5 times did not deserve acquittal anyway. dont need some ponced up judge to tell u that

 

[tracy]

I don't know if jury nullification is considered legal in Canada or not. I agree with hermantrude though.

 

[#juan]

Has anyone an opinion on this case?

A Saskatchewan man is on trial.

His daughter, just out of drug rehab, moved in with a known drug dealer.

Pa went to get her out, she wouldn't leave, he shot said drug dealer 5 times.

The case is before the jury.

The judge has instructed the jury that "acquittal is NOT an option"

IMHO, this is outrageous!

The purpose of juries is to see justice done, NOT the law enforced. We seem to have forgotten that.

Opinions?

What I think you are saying Colpy, is that the scummy drug dealer was ruining the daughter's life and probably deserved to be shot. I have some sympathy with that position but it might have been better if the father had shot the drug dealer only twice...once in each kneecap.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't know if jury nullification is considered legal in Canada... .

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it is. Canadian juries can acquit regardless of the law or the judge's instructions, according to this site: http://juror.ca/index.htm. I don't know who runs that site, but it's pretty clear about it, and it seems credible.

I think I'd have shot the bastard too, though probably only once. I'd also have to wonder what kind of a father I was, to let things progress to that point. Surely there were signs long before that, that the girl was heading for serious trouble? The local media have not been forthcoming with the back story.

 

[karrie]

Well, I can see why a father would feel the need to rescue his daughter from a situation like this, but, I don't blame the judge one bit. Shooting someone five times in a situation that's clearly not self defense, is simply not something that a jury can let a man off on. I don't think it needed saying though. Unless it was the most moronic jury on earth.

 

[#juan]

There is a bit of room to argue either way but it looks like Dexter is right

http://criminalreview.ca/index.php/2006/10/26/r-v-krieger/

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

He should have shot him in the nads. I agree with the judge. Sometimes aquittal is not an option. Leave it up to sentencing. He did wrong he needs to do time. Maybe not much time but some.

 

[karrie]

he needs to do time. Maybe not much time but some.

So a man should get less time for premeditated murder based on the value of the person he murders?

 

[#juan]

So a man should get less time for premeditated murder based on the value of the person he murders?

Not exactly, but the daughter just got out of drug rehab. Was this drug dealer to blame? Was she back on drugs again? What was the father's state of mind when he attacked and shot the dealer. We all have hopes and dreams for our children. I can see cutting the father a little slack.

 

[karrie]

Not exactly, but the daughter just got out of drug rehab. Was this drug dealer to blame? Was she back on drugs again? What was the father's state of mind when he attacked and shot the dealer. We all have hopes and dreams for our children. I can see cutting the father a little slack.

I just find it a slippery slope. A lot of people take the wrong path in life. If a relative of mine had taken a wrong turn, and was murdered for it, i would certainly hope the jury would not make light of their death, based on their own decision of his worth.

Keep in mind, he was not keeping the daughter there... "the daughter would not leave" is how this was presented. Her choosing drugs, or a man, over her family, is HER responsibility, not the responsibility of those around her. Killing someone else because you don't like the decisions a grown woman is making doesn't seem very excusable.

 

[#juan]

I hear you karrie. I don't say we should pat the father on the back and set him free but by the same token I wouldn't be asking for life with no parole either.

The girl was likely her own worst enemy but all of this is speculation. We don't know when she started with this drug dealer.

 

[Kreskin]

It isn't the jury's duty to write the law it's their duty to interpret the facts within the context of the law. It's a judge's job to give direction to a jury. Unless all of the jurors just finished 8 years of law school they need the judge to understand how the law applies to the facts.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'd have shot the guy in the "nads", too, were I the father.
Were I the judge, I would have the father for justifiable, and sentence him to time served with probation, ban him from having FAs, and do community service.
However, I bet the judge nails the guy to the wall by his "nads" because these days, the issues are more about treating the black-hat guys nice and the white-hat guys like sh}t.

 

[karrie]

these days, the issues are more about treating the black-hat guys nice and the white-hat guys like sh}t.

As far as I've learned about the legal system, if you shoot a drug dealer, or a lawyer, their lives are esentially equal in the eyes of the court, and thus your sentence will be relatively the same. A grown woman choosing to not leave her boyfriend/drug dealer isn't something that is justification for murder in the eyes of any legal system. Beating his ass into the ground, that would probably be excused. I wouldn't say it's necessarily an issue of trying to treat criminals better than anyone else, and more an issue of making sure that there are as few class divisions in the legal system as possible.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It isn't the jury's duty to write the law it's their duty to interpret the facts within the context of the law. It's a judge's job to give direction to a jury. Unless all of the jurors just finished 8 years of law school they need the judge to understand how the law applies to the facts.

Strictly speaking, you're quite right, except maybe it's only 4 years of law school, but it's clear from that excellent link #jaun provided that jurors can choose not to apply the law if it offends their consciences. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, for instance, was performing abortions at a time when it was clearly illegal to do so, he was obviously guilty according to the letter of the law, but more than one jury would not convict him. I'm sure any thoughtful lawyer or judge would agree that the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and justice, are not the same thing. Juries are about justice, the judgement of our fellow citizens, and no judge is entitled to order a jury to return a particular verdict.

 

[L Gilbert]

All that sounds nice and fair, but in case you haven't been paying attention, most judgements that hit the news in this country portray judges as being out of touch with society and that's at an increasing rate. The youth offenders' act doesn't make anything any better either. Also, trials are backed up so the guy will serve a couple months whether he's judged guilty or not anyway, and on a first offense it's easy to serve a third and get out on parole. I knew a kid back in early seventies who was jailed and didn't get to trial till 2 months later, was sentenced to four months. He actually served 6 months between jail and prison on a 4 month sentence. There is no such thing as a justice system in Canada. It's a legal system and it has nothing to do with justice nor what's "fair".
This fella's kid is toast if the father isn't treated lightly because he seems to be the only one with an interest in her. That the kid will be toast is a fair whack of punishment for a parent, as well.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

All that sounds nice and fair, but in case you haven't been paying attention, most judgements that hit the news in this country portray judges as being out of touch with society and that's at an increasing rate.

Well, you're perhaps a little more cynical than I would be. I have two brothers-in-law who are lawyers, one a senior staffer at the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, the other's now a federal court judge. Judges may be portrayed in the media as being out of touch, and I'm sure some of them are, but I don't think that's generally true.

 

[Kreskin]

Strictly speaking, you're quite right, except maybe it's only 4 years of law school, but it's clear from that excellent link #jaun provided that jurors can choose not to apply the law if it offends their consciences. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, for instance, was performing abortions at a time when it was clearly illegal to do so, he was obviously guilty according to the letter of the law, but more than one jury would not convict him. I'm sure any thoughtful lawyer or judge would agree that the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and justice, are not the same thing. Juries are about justice, the judgement of our fellow citizens, and no judge is entitled to order a jury to return a particular verdict.

But it's their duty to inform the jury how the law applies. In the Morgantaler case his acquittal was later overturned and subsequently reinstated during a period of legal constitutional ambiguity. Judges have always given juries instructions. They do so at the start of a trial, during a trial and at the end of a trial. They do that in every case. I would assume that happened in the case as well but a junior court reporter saw his first case and wrote about it. Judges instruct juries how the law applies to the facts presented. Then it's up to the jury to determine what the facts are and apply justice according to Canadian law not their own law.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, you're perhaps a little more cynical than I would be. I have two brothers-in-law who are lawyers, one a senior staffer at the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, the other's now a federal court judge. Judges may be portrayed in the media as being out of touch, and I'm sure some of them are, but I don't think that's generally true.

You may be right. I'm only going on the evidence I see, but I haven't researched the issue very much, content to think that the entire legal system in Canada needs a major overhaul and the issues between the courts and the charter of rights and freedoms need to be hashed out and clarified whether the victims of crime have rights and whether the criminals deserve rights.