I need help with this question

The courts have no business trying to filtering out people who might decide to exercise their right repeat their right of jury nullification,

Yes there is no question that this couple is not of the same race and therefore broke our state law as clearly written against interracial sex even if legally married in another state.

Happy that if you was on that jury you would send both of them to prison as your would allow yourself to only decide the issue on the fact that they was having sex and they was not of the same race.

This is a rather extreme position I think.

In the South, there were lynchings. The KKK would fill the juries making sure that the people who performed the lynchings would never be punished. This is what jury nullification meant in the South before the civil rights movement.

You don't see a problem with that?

Someone who is a member of the KKK shouldn't be sitting on a Jury on any case involving race.

Once more you would have cheerfully voted to send that married couple to prison as you had accept the judge instructions to rule only on the facts and not used jury nullification.

Is that what you are saying??????

Huh? This has nothing to do with the point.

We as a society have an important interest of keeping people with political biases (i.e. KKK members) off of juries who are supposed to judge fairly.

Of course I am using the KKK as an example of why this is a bad (although this is a real historical example... many times the KKK did throw juries). The principle works both ways, there should be a fair jury even in cases where I disagree with a law.

We want fair juries.

So you would had allow yourself to be filter out as a juror knowing that without that protection they would be spending years in prison as the facts was very clear they was having sex an was not of the same race????

Such actions by a court was in effect a command by the court to find them guilty.

Yes I would answer honestly the juror screening questions. Lying to get on a jury is immoral... no matter what ends you are using to justify this subversion of our legal process.

But let me ask this question?

I can give you many examples where jury nullification was used to protect racist killers.

Can you give me a single example where jury nullification was used to stop prosecution of anti-miscegenation laws?

LOL so the courts successfully keeping jury nullification out of cases due to people such as yourself allowing themselves to be filter out of the jury pool is somehow an argument not to have jury nullification??????? o

Sorry but I was only a child when the case I am talking about was before the court however there is no question that the moral repeat the moral thing to do would have been not to allow myself to be filter out by a racist court system.

You not lying to this court and therefore not granting the protection of jury nullification to that couple that they are entitle to is the sin not any lying.

There are several different issues here you seem to be confusing. Let me answer them one by one.

1. I believe that we as a society have the right and the responsibility to keep people with fundamental bias off of juries. People who are members of the KKK shouldn't be judging African-Americans or put in a position to let killers go free.

For this end, I believe that it is right that our legal system asks people if they are in the KKK before allowing them to serve on a jury (I served on a jury where I was asked if I was the member of a racist organization).

You seem to disagree with me on this.

2. You believe that it is morally correct to lie about your affiliations or beliefs in order to subvert the legal process in cases where you disagree with the law. Your thinking is that if the law is immoral, then you should do everything in your power to prevent it from being enforced.

I disagree with you on this. I believe that the rule of law, and the need to have a fair legal system (in spite of bad laws) is sacred. I would not lie to get on a jury in any case.

3. You believe that once you are on a jury, jury nullification is a valid tactic for laws or penalties with which you disagree. You state that a juror has the right to ignore the instructions and the law to reach a conclusion that is just.

I agree with you on this point.

You are confusing point #2 and point #3. I wouldn't lie to get on a jury. I would practice jury nullification... disregarding the instructions to reach a result that in my opinion is more just.

They are not the same.

I served on a Jury that involved a Black man who had allegedly attacked a stereotypically "cute" white female. She was petite, shapely and innocent-looking ... you couldn't have picked a better stereotypical victim with a professional casting department.

Before being empaneled, each of us was brought into the judge's chambers. It is a little intimidating. The judge in his robes was sitting behind a big desk. The desk was raised so I was literally looking up at him. There were men in fancy suits standing around him. He asked me several questions about whether I was a member of any organization that excluded people based on their race. They were trying to ensure that I wasn't a racist... because a racist would have been unable to judge fairly in this case.

They asked a couple of questions about whether I believed that a police officer ever lied. I think these were designed to see if I had anti-police bias and were negotiated to make the prosecution happy.

I thought the process was reasonable.