The Lazy Man’s Way To Subvert The System And Deliver Justice

Recently, a couple who had rescued a deer and nursed it back to good health — only for the state of Indiana to charge them with a misdemeanor and a jail sentence of 60 days. It’s quite the conundrum – they broke the law, but to punish a man for acting righteously is the height of wickedness. In the Bible, God annihilates the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for such depravity. If it were a felony offense, the couple would be put before a jury, who must decide only on the facts of the case, on whether they committed the alleged crimes.

Except that last sentence is false. The entire legal system has conspired to keep jurors blind to one of their most powerful privileges – that they judge the facts AND the law. If a juror accepts that the person on trial did indeed violate the law, the juror may still return a finding of ‘not guilty’ because they consider the law unjust. This right is known as jury nullification. It has had a long and storied history; famously, a man was accused of sedition in New York in 1735, while it was still under the control of the British crown. There was no question that he, John Peter Zenger, had violated the law, with his truthful criticism of the government. But the jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ because they deemed the law unjust.

In the years before the American Civil War, juries in the North refused to convict runaway slaves under the ‘Fugitive Slave Act,’ because they believed escaping bondage was not a crime. Jury nullification has also been practiced in Canada and the United Kingdom.


The Government Cover-Up

In 1794, in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford, the US Supreme Court ruled that judges were obligated to inform jurors of their right to jury nullification. A hundred years later, in Sparf v. United States, the Court ruled that judges were not obligated to tell the jury of their rights to judge the law. Later rulings would affirm the right of the courts to bar the defense from telling jurors that they could use jury nullification. A 1997 ruling held that a juror can be removed if he intends to use jury nullification; a 2001 California Supreme Court ruling involving a statutory rape case held that jurors must effectively snitch when a fellow panelist is opting for jury nullification.

In 1994, the courts in Colorado ended up going on a witch hunt after a woman started arguing for jury nullification to her fellow jurors. She turned out to have a drug-related sentence, 12 years prior, which she had not been asked about during jury selection. The government charged her with perjury, for not disclosing her prior drug sentence, even though she answered all jury selection questions truthfully. Said Clay Conrad, author of a book on jury nullification, “It is obvious from the context of the entire case they prosecuted her for her verdict. If they can punish jurors for their verdicts, the jury system is just a living fossil brought out to harm people. There is nothing left if jurors can’t be independent and vote their own consciences.”

To use jury nullification is to ‘obstruct justice’ these judges held, shredding the power of jury nullification. The court tried to convict her of perjury based on things she said during jury deliberations, deliberations which may not be used in court proceedings so that jurors can speak candidly among themselves when making decisions.

I asked an older lawyer friend of mine about jury nullification, and he steadfastly denied that what I was proposing was legal. I asked another friend who is an attorney, and he had never heard of it, despite a successful career. In fact, federal prosecutors indicted a man for telling people about jury nullification, saying that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” In other words, the feds were too happy to baldly suppress free speech, in the case of a retired chemistry professor handing out pamphlets on juror rights. Thankfully, he was acquitted.

Honest, accurate coverage of jury nullification is the exception, not the rule. For a captivating illustration of jury nullification, see this brief work, by the illustrator of the internet sensation ‘Go The F**K To Sleep.’ Noted libertarian Ron Paul is also a prominent advocate of jury nullification.


What You Can Do

The next time you hear some self-righteous jackass ask if you voted, ask them if they know what ‘jury nullification’ is. While your election votes will probably never make a difference, your vote in a jury trial in a criminal case is decisive—a guilty verdict is required from all twelve jurors. Without your assent to his guilt, the defendant cannot be convicted.

You must look to your own beliefs to decide when jury nullification is appropriate. But it’s not hard to imagine them:

  • The War on Drugs – someone is on trial for felony possession of marijuana: not guilty
  • Domestic Violence – A man is facing jail time for slapping his wife after she was caught cheating on him: not guilty
  • The Right To Bear Arms – A woman is charged with illegal weapons possession after confronting a mugger with a handgun, in a city where it is impossible for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry a firearm on his person: not guilty
  • Self-Defense – A homeowner is charged with murder for shooting a burglar: not guilty
  • Sexual Assault – A man is charged with sexual assault for not using a condom during sex: not guilty
  • Assault – A man is charged for punching a woman who physically started a fight with him: not guilty
  • Child Support – A man is charged for non-payment of child support for a woman who lied about being on the pill and refused to get an abortion: not guilty
  • Statutory Rape – A 17 year old male turns 18 and continues to sleep with his 17 year old girlfriend, and then gets charged with statutory rape: not guilty

In short, if a defendant committed something you don’t consider a punishable crime, and you believe it would be a violation of your conscience to convict the defendant, you simply vote ‘not guilty.’ Outcome: either the jury is hung, giving the defendant another trial, or the defendant is acquitted completely. I cannot think of any other power you have a citizen that is as easy, potent and immediate as jury nullification.

Read Next: How Feminist Censorship Introduced Me To The Red Pill

57 thoughts on “The Lazy Man’s Way To Subvert The System And Deliver Justice”

    1. Jury’s don’t make laws, but with nullification they can toss a bad one out. That seems more than reasonable. Especially in today’s society where you can be locked up or murdered by the government with no due process.

    1. Elmer,
      We all know that trial will be a farce at best. More likely star chamber and Zimmerman will be found dead by “suicide” in his cell.

  1. Jury nullification leaves me both feeling empowered, and worried, at the same time. For every example of a jury you can make that wisely overturns the law based on situational concerns, I could come up with a case where they do it for a stupid reason. I’m not sure I like the idea that a group of 12 people who probably have no real understanding of law being able to overturn any law, any time, on a whim.
    It’s dandy in theory to give juries broad discretionary power, but keep in mind, judges themselves are suppose to have that. Except when they use it, one side or the other invariably calls them activist judges. People go batshit against a judge who uses their power to interpret the law situationaly, to apply some common sense to a specific case. So we get mandatory sentencing guidelines, and other laws which force judges to render certain verdicts, and strip them of their power to try a case on it’s merits.
    It’s a pretty nuanced issue giving that much power to people without some ability to, as another poster linked, stop a jury from making an egregiously stupid ruling.

    1. (my comment is abbreviated because writing from a mobile is nigh impossible) A couple points:
      1. Sometimes it’s a matter of ignoring the law based on situational concerns (eg the deer case). But sometimes the law itself is evil, and ensures innocent men will go to prison. Mandatory sentencing is flawed, but I’m guessing they arose because convicted criminals would get light sentences from softie judges – every day some story comes out of some murderer getting a light sentence, and the public is largely furious with the outcome. FWIW, this is a lot worse in the UK than in the US.
      2. Faced with jurors who will be armed with the power to nullify, it’s even more important to get respectable jurors. I’d be in favor of some basic vetting process, but this would inevitably be thrown out due to ‘civil rights’ concerns. Hell, at least for the short term, you could take the cynical perspective that anyone in this environment who actually *knows* about jury nullification will be a decent juror anyway.

      1. I completely agree with your points. My worry about this is there needs to be some kind of reasonable counter-balance to nullification to stop egregiously stupid juries from making mistakes that wind up so infuriating people that the ability of a jury to nullify is formally and completely stuck down by popular demand. I don’t have an answer, but your article certainly informed me quite a bit. Very well done!
        And yeah… a jury of your peers is almost never a jury of your peers. That would be asking too much.

    2. Prosecutors and judges are idiots that you wouldn’t trust to fill out your tax return. Stupidity that frees people is better than stupidity that locks them up. Compare the value of your freedom to the value of housing violators for $60,000/year.

      1. Why do they cost 60K per year? Give them NO exercise facilities, NO fielt mignon (whatever – cheap food.)
        And make them deal with most of the tasks required, such as janitorial and food service and laundry.
        It AIN’T a country club. Not a vacation. They get WORKED as exercise (seriously, 30-45 minutes of hardcore aerobics or something, three times a week. Bodyweight exercises too. Not sets of weights, and basketball, and (whatever.) ) Smaller cells – induce claustrophobia.
        At the same time, let’s make for REASONABLE sentencing. Third-time murderer? Death row, enough. Vehicular homicide while drunk? Check the circumstances. (How often drunk, weather conditions, other driver’s actions.) Is there a guilty mind (mens rea)? Error in judgement? Mechanical problems? (Which would rule out alcohol impariment as a cause, too.) Professional thief? Drug mule? (That should be hard to prove…) Drug user? (Kick em in rehab. No prison. Legalize the drugs, too, why keep enriching foreign people with American $$? Mostly racist sh!t. And I AM at this point racist… 😛 But we don’t need bullSh!t reasons, the legit reasons – WHICH CAN BE CORRECTED, BTW – are good enough. We don’t need stories of the “Big, Bad, Negro come to rape Good White Women”! And first, I’d challenge you to FIND a good white woman… 🙁 But the same tacticv was applied to Marijuana, to cocaine, to crack, to meth, to PCP, to LSD, to I think even Extacy. WTF, don’t people EVER wise up? Same with gun control, FFS. ENOUGH! Those who will be n*ggers gonna be n*ggers. HELP those who would get out of that mess. Education, good work ethic, intact families. Worked in the 50s and 60s. Black Panthers, Nation of Islam vs. Trayvon Martin, et al.)
        Sorry, OT. Relevant, but OT.
        But we need to STOP criminalizing NORMAL behavior, and START reducing prison headcount. Parole, release for those that deserve it; the chair, for those who deserve THAT. Senator, your chair is ready…

        1. Prisoners are not fed filet mignon, they eat cheap food like burgers or whatever. Exercise facilities are not expensive and reduce other costs like health care or breaking up fights since it gives a constructive focus. The costs are largely from having to pay guards and maintain the costly buildings.

        2. Prisoners don’t receive 60 grand worth of ANYTHING. The jail CORPORATION bills the gubmint (YOUR tax money) that amount. Prisoners get about one dollar a day worth of food, and Wackenhut pockets the difference.

    3. Let’s be realistic though, using Obamacare as an example, judges tend to lean towards their political ideology as opposed to reading the letter of the law and interpreting it.
      It’s just another form of mob rule, 2 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner.
      With 12 jurors, you only need one to have a true conscience to protect freedom.

      1. 12 jurors are people too, also leaning towards their ideology. Ask a black man in the 60’s if he would want to trust 12 southern white jurors to protect his freedom, or a law that implicitly did. I get where you’re coming from, I really do. But this IS a power that can be abused, and there will be times and places when people will need some protection from it.

        1. A black man in the 60s, would have been OK if judged by a “jury of his peers.” As would someone convicted of Marijuana offenses in San Francisco today. Take the “peers” requirement out of it, and things get iffier.

        2. Again, people are missing the concept.
          A: Do you really think that the defense would pick 12 racist whites to be on a jury and that they ALL would nullify a law so that an innocent black man would go to prison?
          Now, combine that with the fact that even the SUPREME COURT ruled that black people only counted as a fraction of a person.
          If you think that only non-government individuals make those mistakes, then you are crazy.

        3. No no… I absolutely don’t think the government would be free of mistakes. I’m just saying, as others have, there’s a lot of danger in 12 people being able to nullify the law on a whim. We all know the potential for abuse here. It’s worth being honest and admitting this can be both a good thing, and a bad thing.

        4. Only because the government is so overreaching to begin with. If it kept to its limits, we wouldn’t be discussing this…

        5. “Peers” has been redefined.
          I would be impossible to judge; hard to find my sort of nasty in a 130+ IQ, angered because most of what he’d been taught about life and society was actually a bold-faced LIE meant to subjugate him…

        6. True of everything. You can drown in an inch of water; you’ll die without water. You can’t touch Sodium (reacts), nor would you breath chlorine; react them together, you get table salt – and without some salt, you’ll die.
          But ideology trumps everything these days. Feminism, corporatism, statism. How about HUMANism?

        7. >Do you really think that the defense would pick 12 racist whites to be on a jury and that they ALL would nullify a law so that an innocent black man would go to prison?
          I think the concern is more the reverse, that 1 racist white on a jury could nullify the conviction of a white who murdered a black.

      2. Good luck finding a conscience in America.
        Even GAME teaches you to check your conscience at the door. “Screw unto others…”

    4. Those people still have the power to make an absolutely stupid ruling anyway. Nullification simply allows them to say “you gotta stop with these unconstitutional searches, because it’s bullshit” instead of “fuck the po-po”. It’s an expansion of democratic discourse.

    5. Your argument is not without merit. However, we’ve had specific reasons for how this has turned out. It used to be worthwhile to sit on a jury. A few days at most, probably, to get things sorted out, at a decent “rate” of pay, with no other pressing concerns, really.
      Now? Well, if you didn’t get the crops in in time, you’d lose some, back then; your shop might miss a few deadlines, but you could make up for it; you were paid a reasonable amount for the day. And you weren’t sequestered, though you weren’t supposed to talk about the case.
      Now? People can’t live more than a few minutes without some electronic gadget to entertain them. They don’t have the IQ, education, or interest in the law or the case. And you’re being paid LESS than minimum wage, and more recently, less than the cost of lunch!
      For people like me, working contract jobs, it’s ruinous: You don’t get paid unless you’re working. Jury pay is less than you spend on lunch. Part Timers have the same limitations. No work, no pay. Jury pay won’t help out. THAT should be illegal and discriminatory.
      As to the “activist judge” bit – True! But usually mis-applied. (My father was an expert chemist and testified often, grant some leeway.) The law says X. Company handles “dangerous material” per instructions Y. Accident happens. Lawyers come in and make a mountain out of an ant hill. Judge then MIS-APPLIES or MIS-INSTRUCTS on the law, and erroneous decisions result in millions or more going to plaintiffs. Our prices go up.
      In some cases – it’s ridiculous. (Example: Black Box project for the shop boss. Attach 16 PSI Acetylene tnak to 32 PSI Oxygen tank and nozzle, making an Ocy-Acetylene torch. Problem: Used two feeds into a T-joint to the outlet. Result: Oxygen rushes into acetylene tank, making a bomb. Light the “torch”, blow up the three men working on it. Company held liable, since it happened on the company’s property. Judge explains law, company pays, even though it’s not a project for the company. We the sheeple pay the losses. We’re not allowed to nullify the law… WTF? Comparable to..) A burglar breaks into your home. Trips, breaks his leg. Sues you. WINS. WTF? There for illegal purposes, trespassing, causing financial losses. But it’s HAPPENED. Similar to shooting someone in the back after they’ve been robbing you. Why is it illegal? They have shown bad intent, who gives a f*ck if it’s front or back? It’s STILL defensive in nature. YOU didn’t aggress, THEY did – but YOU can go to prison.
      We need to nullify with a higher caliber.

      1. Once a guy pulled out a shotgun and was pointing it at me threatening to shoot me. I relieved him of it and beat him about the head with it. I then split with the gun and called the cops. I was arrested for ARMED ROBBERY. Armed, because a gun was involved. Robbery, because I STOLE THE GUN.
        My lawyer advised me to nolle prosse it, rather than relying on a jury of twelve morons to see the reality.

  2. I agree with every example you listed at the bottom. Especially the pill one.

  3. Jury selection process weeds out people capable of thinking. If you find yourself on a jury you’ll want to go to the doctor to be screened for Alzheimer’s.

    1. I was thinking the same. They want only morons in the court. So one should realize that going through the process and then finally getting selected for jury duty is an insult.

  4. I was at a CLE once where a trial lawyer gave us the advice “In the United States, 33% of the population believe in ghosts. That means in every trial, you have to convince four people who believe in ghosts of your facts and theory of the case.” So giving the power to juries to nullify law? Ain’t such good a idea.
    Oh, you do all realize that women sit on juries now too? Do you really want a group of women determining what the law is??

    1. Even more than 30% of the population seemingly believe the Government is some sort of useful entity. Or lawyers. Compared to that, something as rational as ghosts ain’t nuttin…

    2. That’s my opinion. There is a greater danger of juries discounting evidence and convicting, like a woman that dislikes a man on sight, merely because he is low status male. She believes “of course, he’s violent. He’s a low status man.” I was just thinking about this subject in the same light as this author, that the judges instructions are only instruction, not orders. But the reason the judge gives the jury instructions is to provide some anchor to use in determination of guilt, especially in an emotional case. Often jurors are so biased against a defendant, it is safer to let a judge decide.

      1. There’s a reason women weren’t treated as adult humans…
        Pity we’re still learning WHY.

    3. Juries do not determine the law, even by nullification. Nullification is plain simple rejection of said law. It only takes one to reject the law.
      The worse case scenario is that someone on the Jury disagrees with the law. And the only way that is bad is if they think it’s ok to commit a violent crime against someone, steal from someone, or sell state secrets.
      Any other laws that are “nullified”, is it really going to ruin society?
      Cost/benefit analysis to me clearly shows that it is much better for people to have nullification rights over the state than to worry about someone nullifying some silly traffic law or smoking pot.

  5. No matter how stupid some trials may be because of this, remember that it always better to let the guilty go free than to jail the innocent.

  6. A.K.A. a sure-fire way to get out of jury duty: just tell the prosecutor you know what jury nullification is. You’re out of there.

  7. Jury nullification is mean to give the ultimate power to the people regarding the laws. It is a way for the citizen to overturn both the legislative and judicial branches of government.
    Most people are more than reasonable and all of our consciences are similar in nature. We are basically born knowing the difference between right and wrong.
    I trust my fate to 12 jurors who know jury nullifcations FAR more than I do to a government intent on retaining power as it’s number one option.

    1. One thing: Most – not all – of us are born into a close enough cultural norm that we have what you term “conscience.” A smal percentage – 1% or less – are not. They either can’t understand right and wrong (as we define them) or don’t care. These are psychopaths, who may or may not actually act on these impulses for one or another reason. We do NOT want them in a jury box. 😉
      We DO want them DEAD. (Only treatment. Sorry.)
      Instead, we vote them into government offices. We stupid.
      Also, the gov’t doesn’t want ANY sort of resistance. We should obvey, AND hate ourselves for obeying, AND be killed if we step out of line. That is a problem. It will have to be resolved, likely with force. Which leads to the last problem:
      Psychopaths are born monsters. Mostly, they are emotional, and predictable to some extent, via profiling.
      What our government is doing now – is CREATE monsters. Perfectly sane, rational, intelligent, psychopathic NOT insane people, who will do the dirty tasks that are necessary in the future. They will wall off that part of their heart and mind, and mingle amongst the citizens, and sooner or later, a few will get into positions of power, or locations the gov’t is vulnerable, and cause chaos. (And walk back out at the end of the operation / day.)
      Gonna be ugly…

  8. This is truly the last shred of (non-violent) power individuals hold against the gov’t. Of course, if we started exercising this power en masse, they would just stop having jury trials, or they would classify nullification as terrorism and send you to G-Bay.

    1. You must’ve missed how they already HAVE decided (both) that we are terrorists, and that jury nullification is illegal.
      The way I learned it, Jury Nullification means: 1. You accept the law as written. 2. The person is literally guilty, given how the law was written. 3. The law doesn’t apply, REGARDLESS of the fact (s)he performed the actions that are criminal.
      Examples from above: Using an illegal gun (possibly even the muggers) against your attacker: Self defense is NOT illegal. Makign the means of defense illegal IS unConstitutional, and CANNOT be infringed by the states, either: Supremacy clause applies, or it doesn’t. If the Supremacy Clause applies, then the Second Amendment is the end of the discussion. If the Supremacy Clause does NOT apply, then… The Federal Government has WAY overstepped its bounds in meddling with state affairs. (Examples are such things as DV funds, highway taxes, education funds – all either extorted or used as a bribe to follow Uncle Sam’s Edicts.)
      Other example, man defends himself from a woman attacking him – I don’t care if she’s crippled, he’s FREE TO GO. She assaulted him. No such thing as “excessive force” in that situation, maybe shaded by he’s a LEO, soldier, or accomplished fighter (IE, professional MMA, pro boxer, or owns the dojo & teaches.) Otherwise, no one would be expected to have a clue when enough was enough. Some moves that work very well – are killing moves. The point of self-defense is to STOP the other person’s attack. Broken spines do that. And certain breaks won’t stop the attacker from using a gun or knife anyway. No excessive force. And if a weapon is introduced, ANYONE is cleared, period. That Special Forces Major? Hand to hand specialist? Takes a knife from his female attacker and stabs her 15 times? Well, was it a kata? Or 15 thrusts? MAYBE we look at 15 thrusts. MAYBE. SHE initiated the assault, SHE bears the responsibility. Period.
      Sexual assault: Unless she can find witnesses saying she was, in fact, dragged away, I’m on the “acquit” side, not the nullification side. If no one else noticed, we look at secondary forensics: Scrapes, bindings, bruises, rape kit. Next morning regret? Law doesn’t apply, nullify. She’s drunk, he’s drunk? Learn not to drink, nullify. She’s drunk, he’s sober? Might have a case. She consents, he doesn’t use a condom/ condom breaks – NO, Nullify. Law doesn’t apply, she (literally) was asking for it. 😉 She gave consent. Such is life.
      Same with the Statutory Rape and DV and Child Support. In fact, on Child Support, I’d REQUEST A paternity test to ensure we were making the correct decision. Let’s see how the courts respond. (I’d bet on contempt charges first, then jury tampering or similar, and probably other harassment tactics. With all the in and out in the courthouse, i’d probably find out how to get inert chemicals in… Then mix them, and they aren’t inert after mixing. If judge will not recuse, then judge will be retired. I don’t know why we are discussing this crap, we should be ACTING, and no longer in “peaceful protest.” The colonists rebelled for less.)
      As for drugs? I’m now at the point where I’d nullify on principle, and I don’t do drugs. I’m just tired of hearing about people going to prison for ruining thier own lives, and nothing more. STFU, it’s NOT worth it, we’re enriching the foreign cartels. Air America ring any bells? Let the junkies kill themselves and each other and the dealers. Let the potential robbery targets defend themselves. Problem solved. Make the drugs legal, even better. It’s just one more form of obedience to government, if the gov’t is the one doling out the drugs to the addicts. Even more effective than the government tits the parasite classes are sucking on.

  9. If you are smart enough, you should be able to come up with enough bullshit reasons to give a not guilty and not get kicked off the jury– act like you believe . Covert nullification

  10. i learned this years ago. i try to tell people but they tell me im wrong. then they look into it and go “oh shit”.
    the way i see it most “offenses” are silly and ruin peoples lives over nothing. im going not guilty all the way unless the defendant is a serial rapist or a pedophile. i would have said not guiilty for OJ Simpson and you know he did that shit. i wouldve killed the bitch too.

  11. Just don’t register to vote and you won’t have to worry about any of this.

    1. A lot of venues now use driver’s license info, too. Soon, any public info will get you a trip to the jury pool.

  12. Lawyers dont know the law, but they do know how to fake it. I’ve explained the Fair Debt Collection Practices act to a successful bankruptcy lawyer. How you can even BE a bankruptcy lawyer without knowing it is beyond me. Its like a cop not knowing the speed limit.

  13. Check out the Fully Informed Jury Association’s [FIJA] web site for more information.

Comments are closed.