Jury Nullification is like the secret code of the US justice system.That’s why most of the people that work for the system absolutely despised the whole idea.
Given that our current legal system was created as a direct reaction to star chambers and baked into the constitution, they have an uphill climb, at the least.
In a sense, its the system functioning as it should. If you have a healthy democratic society with good principals, juries should acquit people for things that may be crimes but are perfectly reasonable and justified.
Why should law enfocement and prosecuters get to decide which laws to enforce and which not to, but jurrors cant?
Unless the laws on the books were short and perfect, there is always going to be enforcement choices, and it seems to me the jury nulification option is no worse than other selective enforcement. It lets guilty people go free, sure, but it sometimes stops unjust incarceration.
Basically a jury can legally decide to nullify by declaring “not guilty” regardless of the facts or the judge’s instructions, etc. This is why even mentioning jury nullification during a trial can really upset the judge and the prosecution. It is supposed to be something every jury is aware of, but that is usually not actually the case.
Jury Nullification is like the secret code of the US justice system.That’s why most of the people that work for the system absolutely despised the whole idea.
It can cut both ways though, it was used in the South in favor of racists.
I’ll keep that in mind next time we have some influence over policy.
I’m sure the GOP will figure out how to get rid of it soon enough
They would have to get rid of juries altogether.
Given that our current legal system was created as a direct reaction to star chambers and baked into the constitution, they have an uphill climb, at the least.
No, they will do what they do everywhere else and stack the decks so that nullification is only ever used for “their people”.
In a sense, its the system functioning as it should. If you have a healthy democratic society with good principals, juries should acquit people for things that may be crimes but are perfectly reasonable and justified.
Why should law enfocement and prosecuters get to decide which laws to enforce and which not to, but jurrors cant?
Unless the laws on the books were short and perfect, there is always going to be enforcement choices, and it seems to me the jury nulification option is no worse than other selective enforcement. It lets guilty people go free, sure, but it sometimes stops unjust incarceration.
It’s a great mechanism for “peer review” especially in the sense that ethics and legality are often entirely different things.
What is Jury Nullification?
Basically a jury can legally decide to nullify by declaring “not guilty” regardless of the facts or the judge’s instructions, etc. This is why even mentioning jury nullification during a trial can really upset the judge and the prosecution. It is supposed to be something every jury is aware of, but that is usually not actually the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification