[voltaireodactyl]

I for one do not think that they are similar because an election is a popularity contest not a logical examination of facts, and voters are not required to sit through a thorough presentation of the facts in evidence, which means they tend to make less than ideal jurors.

[saalweachter]

It's at least a little akin to jury nullification, where the jury finds an obviously guilty person not guilty out of a belief the law is unjust.

(You hear about it on the Internet as a way to Fight The Man on eg arrests stemming from protests or minor drug charges, but historically it was more often used to absolve white supremacists of murder.)

[trashtester]

Don't you think this is precisly why there is a jury system in the first place?

It seems that most legal systems from the start was intended to codify what was considered "just and fair" in the eyes of "the people".

Juries seem to have been put in place specifically to ensure that the legal system operates within this mandate, and to preven overreach or abuse.

[tsimionescu]

The jury system is not intended as a substitute for the law, it's intended as a safeguard to protect from the subjectivity of judges. Juries, like all of the legal system, are still intended to be subordinate to the legislative branch's decisions in terms of what is and isn't wrong.

Jury nullification is a weird rule that goes against the constitutional framework, but is so rarely used, at least for any important matter, that it has never really received too much scrutiny.

[trashtester]

A lot has been written about this. The jury system has many purposes, but I don't think protection against individual subjective or corrupt judges are among the most important. (If anything, judges are much more likely to be objective than jurors.)

Rather, juries are generally a mechanism to prevent overreach by the executive (primarily) but also other branches of government (including the legislative branch). Not necessarily by going directly against laws (though that could also happen), but for instance by identifying laws that contradict the principles of the constitution. (Or other "deeper" laws, for that matter.)

Jefferson wrote : "Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution." [1]

Now, a liberal interpretation of this is that a jury has an independent power, possibly even a duty, to disregard laws they consider to be against the legal basis (constitution, legal traditions, etc) of a country, basically overruling the legislative in such cases.

In fact, this type of thinking is probably a big part of the reason why the SCOTUS will not and can not override many aspects of jury verdicts. Specifically, even the SCOTUS cannot overturn an aquittal.

In other cases (such as when the SCOTUS thinks the jury has violated the constitution, due process hasn't been followed, etc) it will instead invalidate a decision. (Which can lead to the case being dismissed or to a retrial, depending on the details)

[1]: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0...

[trashtester]

There are also some that feel he was unjustly singled out by politically motivated prosecutors.

But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?

Or is it only wrong when Republicans do it?

At minimum I would say that the general public in a general election should have the same power to effetively pardon someone as the President has. After all, the electorate is the basis from which the President draws his power and legitimacy.

And not only for the President, by the way. The legitimacy of the entire system, including both Congress and the Legal System draws its legitimacy from the same source (even if the Constitution is designed to provide protection against short term simple majorities).

If the outcome of the vote cannot be accepted, then that basically means the country cannot remain a democracy.

Personally, I don't think I could have voted for Trump after how he behaved in January 2021 (if I were a citizen). Primarily because of how he betrayed Pence.

But Biden and Kamala sure made it a lot easier for him in 2024 than it would have been if the country had been led by someone like Obama.

[neaden]

The difference is Trump prosecution wasn't politically motivated, he legit did the crimes. Outside of Hunter Biden, who never actually had a role in the administration, no one did anything illegal. Trump has been produced to an unprecedented degree because he committed crimes to an unprecedented degree.

[mschuster91]

> But if you you think there is no risk that the justice system can be misused for such political ends, then I suppose you have the same problems with Biden pardoning Hunter and half his family to protect them from politically motivated prosecution?

Well, Trump made his intentions of prosecuting Fauci, Hunter Biden and many many others more than abundantly clear. He can't whine about Biden protecting people from the threat he himself had announced. (Well, he obviously can and does, and half the population falls for it)