this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
374 points (96.5% liked)

News

23786 readers
4320 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW

Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a "subscribers only" blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.

Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.

Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 7 minutes ago

the whole point of a jury is to allow the people to decide the law on individual cases. There are many problems with juries, but complaining about jury nullification just means you don't like the good parts of having a jury.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Jury nullification doesn't really exist. It's just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about "jury nullification" is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It's actually the conclusion of 2 things:

  • Double Jeopardy means your cannot try someone twice for the same crime
  • A juror cannot be held accountable for a decision they make

If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.

This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago

Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.

[–] sumguyonline@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Not guilty of a crime as stated by a jury of his peers. Has the legal ramification of nullifying laws that a jury says are unjust. It is literally THE last bastion of hope US citizens have for undoing criminal laws.

[–] 843563115848z@thelemmy.club 62 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Let's not forget, maybe, just maybe, this guy is absolutely innocent, was nowhere near the crime at the time, and had nothing to do with it.

And the cops, in their over zeal to catch someone, anyone, found a poor unlucky person who looks like the guy in the crime scene photos and handily fabricated the rest of the physical evidence. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Seriously, a written statement admitting guilt? How likely is that? Anyway, this is what I think is happening. And I doubt the real truth will ever be known, sadly.

[–] galaskorz@discuss.online 14 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, they were pretty quick to say some random guy in a hoodie was also this same random guy in a hoodie getting coffee. Where is this excellent police work in all the other crimes?

I truly am going to laugh so fucking hard if it is really not him and there is evidence putting him in a completely different location but still near by. They will have spent all this time focusing on the wrong person while the actual killer has made a complete getaway.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 11 points 4 hours ago

All the other crimes didn't involve the owner class.

[–] galaskorz@discuss.online 14 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

He’s not guilty of murder. These people just can’t wrap their head around a jury NOT convicting someone with a lot of evidence but never seem to care about convicting people WITHOUT much evidence. Clutch your pearls all you want, if he is found not guilty there are gonna be more not-guilty people.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago

Really hope this is fully televised.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Please, please, god don't put me on the jury. I would hate to hold a murderer accountable for getting in the way of an innocent man's bullets.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I've been on a jury in the last little place I lived and you better believe they made sure it was all employed older white people against a young black man. I was the youngest on at 28. What they did to me is made me sit in a room with these, some probably decent, people, while one guy just talked and talked and lied and told fake stories like long discredited shit while a bunch were like oh yeah and I remember.

Fucking makes me sick. Sick at myself that I was such a little shit at that age that I didn't tell the old prick to shut the fuck up and stop lying. But what really makes me sick was after sitting in a room for hours with these people is the state's house slave walks in with cops and says we just walked the guy by, showed him who was going to convict him, and he took the plea deal. Fucking gross. Don't believe your fucking TV this is how most cases go.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 72 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.

“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”

Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.

Giggity.

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Jury nullification is also why cops who murder people and klansmen get acquitted. It's not necessarily a good thing, just a quirk of the system.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 4 hours ago

Oh it's definitely a good thing. But sometimes people are bigots. Fortunately most people dont want to let Klansman get aquited.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 hours ago
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 60 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Juries also have acquitted some abused women who killed or attacked their husbands, such as Francine Hughes, leading to a wider recognition of what’s known as battered woman syndrome.

“Juries recognized that before the law did,” Conrad said. “The law is slow to change. Sometimes society changes much more quickly than the law, and that is when jury nullification should come in … We don’t need to have 18th-century law governing 21st-century behavior, and the jury can say so.”

New phrase added to the American lexicon in 2025 - battered patient syndrome.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 97 points 10 hours ago

All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 64 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

“This is not a case of (Mangione) like throwing blood on this guy as he’s walking into the convention,” Bader said, referring to the scene of the shooting outside an investors’ conference in Midtown Manhattan. “If the jury finds that there’s evidence that he ended this man’s life in cold blood, I don’t see the result being an acquittal because of anger toward the health insurance system.”

Dumbass

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 21 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see the result being acquittal because of the anger toward the health insurance system.

Feels like Mr. Bader himself might be a little out of touch with just how bad the health insurance system is.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Its hard for rich people to understand. I have no sympathy for their predicament

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 26 points 10 hours ago (7 children)

Why the hell is CNN charging a subscription now? Are people really stupid enough to pay it?

[–] Joeffect@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Press the button that makes all that stuff go away so you can just read the article...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Please see rule 4 and update your post title

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Fixed, looks like they changed it on me

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It happens, no worries. That’s why I usually comment instead of delete with Rule 4

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Appreciate it. I swear most news sites will change a title 3, 4 times after publication these days. Must have some shit to do with SEO or something.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds to me like either:

  • Rule 4 should be rescinded
  • The link should always be to a timestamped archived version so that the title remains consistent
  • A bot should be created that verifies that the title was accurate at the time of posting
  • Some kind of Lemmy functionality should be created that automatically polls and updates the post title when the article title changes.
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Rule 4 definitely shouldn't be rescinded, there would be way too much editorializing of titles to fit the posters narrative (because let's be real, >50% of users don't open the article, at least not at first). It definitely needs to stay in a true news community.

A timestamped archive version would be nice but you then end up taking away direct traffic from legitimate websites- the same problem as the AMP link I unfortunately had to use above. No traffic, no survival. (Granted I will happily post an archive link when content is paywalled; but most other sites do still need that traffic.)

your options 3 and 4 could work fine- 3 just seems like spam and you'll get people hating it like the MBFC bot, and 4 already partially exists- in the form of the link tagline that appears under the post when you actually open it. Warning users about noncompliance and letting them decide if they care enough to change it or not is probably fine enough for now.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I just feel like forcing people to babysit their posts when it isn't their fault that the news outlet changed the title out from under them might discourage posting.

[–] Ersatz86@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

The preceding discourse was civilized and adult, and I am a better person for having witnessed it. Well done all.

load more comments
view more: next ›