I would not be a very good juror, particularly if a judge expected me to suspend my moral judgments and narrowly follow the law. And I say this even though I realize that a good legal system should be based on that principle.
I’ve cited some tough cases in previous posts, dealing with thorny topics such as brutal tax collection stories, Sharia law, healthcare, incest, and vigilante justice.
Our latest you-be-the-judge story comes from Massachusetts, where a 57-year old man in a wheelchair is in legal trouble for slugging a 27-year old guy with a baseball bat because of allegations that he molested a little girl. Here are excerpts from a story in the Daily Mail.
A wheelchair-bound paraplegic grandfather could face up to 10 years in jail after using a baseball bat to hit a man he suspected of molesting his three-year-old granddaughter. Frank Hebert, 57, has been hit with a felony assault charge over the incident involving 27-year-old Joshua Hardy. …Computer salesman Mr Hebert said: ‘I’m not a hero, that’s for sure. I’d do it again tomorrow, knowing the consequence. …Mr Hebert, who was left confined to a wheelchair with only partial use of his arms after a car crash in Falmouth a decade ago, was summonsed to Edgartown District Court on March 25 and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. …Mr Hebert claims it was over Christmas that the child began asking her grandparents to protect her. He said that on February 22 his partner took her daughter and granddaughter, who were visiting, back to the mainland to talk to police, while he lured Hardy to his Mac PC Sales and Service shop in Vineyard Haven. According to the Boston Herald, Mr Hebert said ‘fear’ prompted him to bring a baseball bat and to call state police to back him up. Mr Hebert said he pointed the bat at Hardy and ordered him to stay seated until police arrived. He said he used the bat after Hardy stood up and laughed at him.
If the government insists on bringing this case to trial, how would you vote?
I almost certainly would practice jury nullification and vote “not guilty.” To be sure, I say this with some hesitation because we don’t know for sure if the guy who got slugged, Mr. Hardy, actually did molest the child. And we also don’t know whether he was seriously injured or just bruised. It might also affect my decision if I found out that Mr. Herbert hit Hardy one time or twenty times.
International Liberty 
[…] I’ve confessed mixed feelings about potential nullification in cases of vigilante […]
[…] I’ve confessed mixed feelings about potential nullification in cases of vigilante […]
The guy had strong reason to believe this was his childs molester. If you caught someone in your home, and needed to detain him until police arrived, isn’t hitting them justified?
This situation has occurred before, often. Almost any father would do the same, It is arrogant and inhumane to ignore the tremendous provocation. If we always go by the book, we would not need our entire legal system, just a book. The fact it exists as it does proves that Justice should have a human face.
If it were me with that bat, he may not have survived.
Our children are not something to “strain at gnats and swallow camels” over.
If the guy didn’t want to be slugged with the bat, he shouldn’t have stood up. The police were on their way, and he could have simply waited and walked. I think slugging him was too good for him when he laughed at that grandfather. Apparently the child, only 3, had said enough to make her grandfather believe this guy was guilty.
[…] ARTICLE HERE […]
So assault and battery are justified if the victim is accused of a crime? We’ve thrown out the presumption of innocence? If the accused later turned out to be innocent, would you now vote to convict the wheelchair bound man of assault?
[…] don’t pretend to know where to draw the line, but, as suggested by my posts about jury nullification, I fully subscribe to the libertarian principle that “not everything that’s illegal is […]
[…] tough cases in previous posts, dealing with thorny topics such as brutal tax collection tactics, child molestation, Sharia law, healthcare, incest, jury nullification, and vigilante […]
I would like a little more surety than “suspected of,” personally. If the guy did it, and the little girl told her grandparents something like “that man touched me a bad way,” then fine. I’m all for taking a whack at a bad guy, as long as we’re really sure he’s the bad guy.
It sounds like a bunch of like minded pedophiles defended the molester!!! I would have brought a little more serious. Remember the guy in Chicago who shot that serial rapist who killed his daughter and got off?
You can’t just go around hitting people accused of things, no matter how bad those things are. The man deserves to go to jail.
I am in agreement with John G, in fact the more he hit him the less likely I’d convict him.
Yes this is a good case for jury nullification which is better used against bad laws with broader reach.
“It might also affect my decision if I found out that Mr. Herbert hit Hardy one time or twenty times.
”
Speak for yourself here. Would have made no difference.
“I almost certainly…say this with some hesitation”. Way to hedge!
Assault all suspected child molesters, just in case, eh?
Give me that bat, I’ll get the guy.
Apparantly, Mr. Hebert hit Mr. Hardy only once. Any cop who brought him in ought to be suspended. The cops are supposed to use some judgement to keep the “blind” court system sane.