Modulator

Any system ran by people will have problems because we are error prone. There is no way around it though and thats why the jury selection process can be lengthy in itself.

A friend of mine, Walter, had some interesting words on the subject recently.

Take a look.

I haven't really decided how I feel about it, either way. I'm sympathetic to the idea of allowing your conscience to overrule bad legislation; I'm also sympathetic to the idea that sometimes you have to accept rules that simply don't agree with. Understanding where that line is would be difficult.

I could never, for instance, sit on a jury for a capital case. Regardless of the law, I would never vote to condemn a man to death. I would have no problem sitting on a drug case, however. Though I think our laws concerning drug use are wrong-headed and counter-productive, it's one of those areas of rules that I simply accept (although I try to change them through voting and being active in the national dialog on the subject).

Therein lies my problem with jury nullification. I understand and am okay with my own fuzzy line of ethics that would allow me to vote "no" when the facts would force me to vote "yes". But, perhaps hypocritically, I have very little faith in the judgement of others to find a fuzzy line of ethics that I would be comfortable with.

I'm speaking here as a solid liberal, not as a libertarian or right-wing "patriot". Orcinus' blog attracted me a while back with his good reporting on incipient fascism in this country coming from the Republican Party, and threats made against the peace movement, but the more I've looked, the less I have to recommend, and his jury nullification article is the last straw, it's time to speak out. There's way too much too say about this issue for the comment section, but essentially Orcinus' ideology (and associations) seem to come from the lines of thought associated with Chip Berlet, Jonathan Mozzochi, Morris Dees, Leonard Zeskind, etc., which are very problematic for liberals and progressives for many reasons:

1. Identity politics and interest group politics. Liberalism and the left to them are defined by identity/victim-group politics and opposition "white male privilege", not by the interests of the working class as a whole nor the middle class. They don't in fact believe that such a thing as a "working class" exists in the U.S., or at least they believe that white males cannot possibly be part of it, and they see the middle class as the enemy, not as part of the working class.

2. A belief that liberalism itself is flawed because liberals accept the American system of government "as-is"; we want to reform it, tweak it, allow for greater equality, and believe in a strong role for good government, but basically believe that the American system of representative democracy is sound. They reject liberalism for this reason, and in fact use that as one of their main critiques of "conspiracism": It's at its heart liberal, not radical, insomuch as it sees the problem not with the U.S. system itself, but with bad individuals in it. For the most blatant example of this mindset, see the writings of Chip Berlet.

3. A destructive tendency to criticize people on the liberal and left side of things for alleged ideological deviations, far more often than they criticize the right. Again, Chip Berlet is the worst, but not the only offender. Berlet, who is supposed to be investigating the far right, has instead issued screed after screed attacking everyone from Pacifica radio to Ramsey Clark to Dick Gregory; in the northwest, Earth First!, Greenpeace, and other groups trying to stop a resumption of whaling there came under heavy criticism from NWCHD and allied groups, because it was Native Americans (one of their identity politics victim groups) who were trying to resume whaling.

4. A not so subtle hostility to the rights of individuals, or to an approach to civil liberties which emphasizes those rights. Since everything is defined by victim-group identity politics, they see "individualism" as the basis of reaction and the right wing. The practical result of this mindset can be summed up by a lecture I attended in the northwest by somebody who was giving a seminar on how to "fight the right." Somebody in the audience asked a question, "what can we as individuals do to fight the right?", and the speaker, who was associated in some way with the Coalition for Human Dignity, gave the person a dirty look and answered in a snide tone of voice, "the most important thing you can do is to stop thinking of yourself as an individual." Indeed. With whackos like that speaking for the left, it's no wonder the right wing has been so successful at organizing. I believe this is ultimately the basis of their knee-jerk opposition to jury nullification, but #5 below is another basis:

5. This is the most dangerous aspect of these groups: A mindset that if one or more factions of the right wing use a particular issue to organize around, then the progressive left should automatically oppose that issue, EVEN IF THAT ISSUE IS ONE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PART OF, COMPATIBLE WITH, OR COMPLIMENTARY TO A PROGRESSIVE/LEFT AGENDA! This is exactly what Orcinus is doing here with his analysis of jury nullification, it's why the "Montana Human Rights Network" lobbies against it, it's why the "Coalition for Human Dignity" listed FIJA in a directory of pacific northwest "hate groups" they published. DESPITE the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, DESPITE the fact that several states practice lifetime disenfranchisement of ex-offenders, DESPITE the fact that ex-offenders are subject to job and housing discrimination for life, barred from ever owning a firearm, etc., DESPITE the fact that incarceration rates are much higher for people of color, DESPITE the fact that the prison-industrial complex is the biggest growth indusitry in this country. Is it that difficult for these so-called human rights groups to understand why jury nullification is so important?

6. A "guilt by association" approach to politics: Red Beckman supports FIJA, therefore FIJA's very roots are anti-Semitic and based in the far right. There is a handful of neo-Nazis involved in the Asatru religion, therefore the entire religion is racist and neo-Nazi. Craig Hulet relies on Antony Sutton as source material, therefore Craig Hulet is a right-wing conspiracy theorist. Etc, etc, etc. This mindset becomes tiring at best; at worst it has resulted in a number of innocent people being smeared by these people in the media and elsewhere, especially by Chip Berlet and Jonathan Mozzochi.

Sorry for the very long comment, but this is an issue that goes right to the heart of everything I see liberalism and progressivism being about. We're long overdue for a debate on the poisonous effect these mindsets have had on the left, and based on his own affiliations and associations which can be gleaned from his website, Orcinus is part of the problem.