As a former Us prisoner of Conscience, by the time jury nullification sits in it is by far too late. I was held well over a year before I beat my charge as a matter of law, and even then they refused to release me for another month as they were looking desperately to charge me with something but ultimately couldn't. There is another type of nullification practiced by the states. The states were originally afraid of the federal government swallowing them up so they restrained the government. However over time the states have become just as bad, if not worse. They have the ability to nullify the federal constitution and more specifically article 14, so that rights can only be secured [peacefully] by means of equity and the punishment of contempt since they have sovereign immunity to federal claims by default. And supposing state agencies violated the state constitution, many states do not permit that as a tort either or have otherwise barred any civil action by granting sovereign immunity to all state claims. Even then the courts could strip equitable claims against defendants in a individual capacity claim, but not an official capacity claim, because in nearly almost all cases-except a rogue employee-there is a remedy in 18 usc 242....that is rarely enforced.
States can pretty much get away with whatever they want and hide behind sovereign immunity, and just wait until someone has the money or the skills in order to file a case in equity and has standing long enough to see the case through. Although in some cases an attorney might get prevailing party fees, the same is not true for a pro-se plaintiff. And the plaintiff could be liable to the state's attorney fees if the state succeeds which is rather easy for a state to do. The issue of standing tends to be why prisoners have more rights than pre-trial detainees even though pre-trial detainees cannot be punished, because prisoners tend to hold inmates for a much longer period of time and jails prisoners tend to end up having standing in the federal courts. Though sometimes to defeat an equitable case, a wardon may transfer an inmate to another institution.
Something like 95% of criminal cases results in a plea deal. In 95% of cases the argument for jury nullification is moot on its face. And if someone doesn't plead guilty, the prosecution and sheriff has mechanisms to punish the pre-trial detainee. They hold people without a bond, hold them in attrition, and as they realize that if they don't plead guilty they are going to lose everything they have in life. They know they can't raise a proper defense while they are stuck in jail. They know that if they take their case to trial they are going to obtain a maximum sentence. Most people break after a few days, some a week, few make it past a month, and I've seen people held a year who seen all their charges dropped only to be reindicted give in. At some point the prosecution or the criminal defense attorney moves for a competency evaluation to punish a defendant who is refusing to plead guilty. Humiliation is a common tactic used against political speakers, even once that would eventually make scotus blog petition of the day as they filed a claim while allegedly being found incompetent. The trial penalty, as the cato institute describes it, is the ability to hold a pre-trial detainee indefinately as punishment for refusing to plead guilty. People who maintain their innocence, rather than plead guilty, end up serving more time than if they were guilty.
Where I used to live, there is a claim that no one beats their charge. In deed, I think the criminal defense attorneys in that county work for the county. I can't find evidence in the contrary. Of all the people who went to the law library to handle their case pro-se, no one officially beat their case. The federal government was paying the country to arrest people on speech based charges. All they needed was to gag a speaker, even political speakers. The county used their representative to amend the state statutes to make the charge unbailable except before a superior court. The county also formed a memorandum of understanding with the courts, the police, the universities, and non-profits to have pro-arrest policies. Once a speaker was arrested, they would not be allowed to bond out. If someone beat their case, it would open them to section 1983 liability.
Except in the most violence cases, though who refuse to appear to court when summons in the pre-trial, or those unfit or unwilling to work for terms of labor after conviction, we need to consider abolishing detention centers and shutting down the jails and the prisons. In the most violent cases, death was often the sentence. But Quakers opposed to the death penalties and opted for prisons instead. The 1827 Liousianna Legislature considered penal institutions on a small scale for those who were unfit or unwilling to work, but one thing stands out. They didn't seem to like think terms of labor was a fit punishment for those skilled in the mechanical arts. Presumably, a wealthy person or his associates could simply buy out his contract and the poorer folks hated that. Ironic since the police tend to target poorer people that they have basically built their own prisons. However the use of jails and punishment in some parts of the US were inherited in some states, such as Massachusetts.
Originally, Irish immigrants were given jobs in the public works that were once voluntary-including the watchmen-thus forming the first police forces in America. This is quite interesting because of the mass Irish immigration many industries, including the Lowell mills,/a>, could no longer compete and Americans lost their jobs due to cheap labor. The Lowell mills once attracted employees, especially women, from all over the the nation-including some of my distant relatives whom local historians had no record of even existing until I found some marriage and death records there. But the Irish well,
Then as the Irish improved their living conditions, the french canadians moved in, well they too hated the french canadians competing against them for the high paying jobs. But although in Boston incarceration, even for debts and dancing, predate the potato famine and the choice of punishment over labour certainly ended up protecting the Lowell workers including the Irish scabs.
It is hard to see why boston chose the penal system. In about 1780 Massachusetts found slavery to be unchristian and illegal where it wasn't just practiced in what we know as Mass-but also Maine. In the absence of slave labor, it is curious why they didn't opt for servant labour instead of prison-as they had to some extent the century before.
But anyways, a greater priority there is in getting rid of pre-trial detention except for the very worst of offenses.