Jury Nullification

[GhostWriter16]

As was brought up in another thread, what do you guys think of Jury Nullification? Should it be allowed or not? Should it be encouraged or discouraged?

Personally, I believe in it. Its just one more check on the government, and I agree with that. I also think the judge should be required to inform the jury that they are allowed to use it.

However, in death penalty cases, (I'm not saying this means there should be a death penalty, although I personally believe in it) anyone who is so anti-death penalty that they would actually set a murderer they believe is guilty free in order to make a statement against capital punishment should not be allowed on the jury of a capital case.

What do you guys believe about it?

 

[emzie]

I absolutely believe in it. It's a fundamental checks against injustice. All jurors should know they have the right to vote their conscience if they feel it's prudent. The prosecution is free to dismiss them before the trial if the state feels that conscience has no barring in the case.

 

[Antilogic]

Would you call this judicial juror activism?

I would argue it should not be allowed, because it politicizes juries and the selection of jurors. The jury's role is to serve as an impartial body to judge the evidence presented as either sufficient or insufficient for a verdict. The OP has given an example of where a person does not want a politicized jury that would allow someone otherwise proven guilty of a crime to go free to make a political statement.

However, I am not clear on how this process works. A jury is supposed to deliver one unanimous verdict, so how does this nullification actually work if 1-2 jurors oppose the law and the rest are in favor of it? Does it automatically result in a hung jury?



EDIT: I quite possibly should have waited to vote in the poll until I got the answer to the above and similar questions. Oh well.

 

[JollyRoger]

It should be allowed, but I would personally not vote in a nullifying way unless I thought the likely punishment was too severe or I thought the prosecution was abusing its discretion in bringing the case. I wouldn't nullify just because I disagreed with the law.

As a defense attorney, it is also frustrating to not be allowed to bring up the concept of nullification, though I will try to sneak it in somehow if I can.

 

[caketastydelish]

I am confused by the poll options. What does downtown mean? I've seen that word brought up several times on this forum, and I never know what people are talking about. I don't think they mean the middle of a city.

 

[emzie]

It should be noted that disagreeing with the law is a quick way to get out of jury duty. As JR says, it's more about stopping a prosecutor from abusing their discretion. Genarlow Wilson's conviction for child molestation springs to mind. In that case, a 17-year-old was sent to prison for engaging in oral sex with a 15-year-old. Had it been vaginal sex, their close age would have made it not a crime. This was a case where some of the jury seemed to think they had no choice but to convict.

 

[Murky]

A Jury has only a duty to determine if the defendant is guilty or innocent. If you ever happen to serve on a jury you should try to be as objective as possible.

 

[Antilogic]

It should be allowed, but I would personally not vote in a nullifying way unless I thought the likely punishment was too severe or I thought the prosecution was abusing its discretion in bringing the case. I wouldn't nullify just because I disagreed with the law.

As a defense attorney, it is also frustrating to not be allowed to bring up the concept of nullification, though I will try to sneak it in somehow if I can.

I take it this is a very useful tactic for the defense?

I am confused by the poll options. What does downtown mean? I've seen that word brought up several times on this forum, and I never know what people are talking about. I don't think they mean the middle of a city.

He's one of the guys on this forum who is often a joke option in the polls.

 

[emzie]

A Jury has only a duty to determine if the defendant is guilty or innocent. If you ever happen to serve on a jury you should try to be as objective as possible.

A prosecutor has a responsibility to ensure justice, not that everything that might be considered a crime be put before the courts. When a prosecutor abuses his obligations, a jury should have the ability to tell him to shove it.

 

[Verarde]

The jury should vote solely on whether the party is guilty or not. The fact that they are in court says something about why their standing already.

 

[JollyRoger]

I take it this is a very useful tactic for the defense?

It is so useful that judges can prohibit it in most jurisdictions.

 

[Berzerker]

wow, so you guys would have sent people to jail under the fugitive slave act for taking care of runaway slaves?

juror's are not robots for the state, they are the last check on it's power

and we're damned if we ever give that right away because the people most deserving of "judging" others have and use a moral compass while robots do what they're told

 

[Truronian]

Personally, I believe in it. Its just one more check on the government, and I agree with that. I also think the judge should be required to inform the jury that they are allowed to use it.

However, in death penalty cases, (I'm not saying this means there should be a death penalty, although I personally believe in it) anyone who is so anti-death penalty that they would actually set a murderer they believe is guilty free in order to make a statement against capital punishment should not be allowed on the jury of a capital case.

These opinions contradict. Jury nullification is all about seeking justice in spite of the law; why should the death penalty be a special case?

 

[Andvare]

However, in death penalty cases, (I'm not saying this means there should be a death penalty, although I personally believe in it) anyone who is so anti-death penalty that they would actually set a murderer they believe is guilty free in order to make a statement against capital punishment should not be allowed on the jury of a capital case.

So in this specific case, where you disagree with the reason, it should not be allowed?

Hypocrisy much?

However you did inadvertently hit the nail here, because morals are so different, and can be so extreme, that you change the function of a jury completely.
Why should this part of society be able to disregard the law, when no other part is*?
What about a cop deciding the law being violated, is against his moral compass, and therefore not something to intervene in?
Would incest or paedophilia be accepted because the jury thought that it wasn't all that bad, as the victim didn't protest? (unfortunately a true story)

I prefer the Danish system here. We use lay judges here. A "jury", in cases with the potential incarceration of fours years or more, consist of three legal judges and either six (city court, first tier) or nine (county court, second tier) lay judges. It requires 2/3rds from each group to get a guilty verdict.
A lay judge case, cases with the possibility of jail time, but less than four years, consist of one judge and two lay judges on the city court, and three of each on the county court level. In theory, they each have the same say in all matters, the reality is vastly different of course. But it does unsure that the jury has all the legal expertise it needs.


*Yes, I know this is naïve, but it should be this way, right?

 

[LucyDuke]

I absolutely believe in it. It's a fundamental checks against injustice. All jurors should know they have the right to vote their conscience if they feel it's prudent. The prosecution is free to dismiss them before the trial if the state feels that conscience has no barring in the case.

What contre said. And I don't care for the poll options.

However, in death penalty cases, (I'm not saying this means there should be a death penalty, although I personally believe in it) anyone who is so anti-death penalty that they would actually set a murderer they believe is guilty free in order to make a statement against capital punishment should not be allowed on the jury of a capital case.

And yeah, this is totally hypocritical.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I support keeping jury nullification as currently (although rarely) practiced rather than not allowing any jury nullification, but would very much prefer if it worked a bit differently.

In my system, the jurors would always be asked explicitly to decide both whether the accused is guilty under the law and whether the law itself is just. Whenever a jury rules that a law is unjust, a referendum on whether to uphold or repeal the law would be automatically placed on the ballot for the next election. The accused would still be convicted, but both he and everyone else found guilty under that law would be exonerated and have the crime expunged from their records if the voters agree that it is unjust.

 

[emzie]

I support jury nullification as currently (occasionally) practiced than no jury nullification, but would prefer if it worked a bit differently.

In my system, the jurors would always be asked explicitly to decide both whether the accused is guilty under the law and whether the law itself is just. Whenever a jury rules that a law is unjust, a referendum on whether to uphold or repeal the law would be automatically placed on the ballot for the next election. The accused would still be convicted, but both he and everyone else found guilty under that law would be exonerated and have the crime expunged from their records if the voters agree that it is unjust.

And what if the law is just but the prosecutor is showing awful judgement by bringing the case?

 

[warpus]

If someone is technically guilty but does not deserve punishment or rehabilitation, then the only recourse really is jury nullification.

That option needs to remain available for jurors.

 

[JollyRoger]

What a neat little world some posters live in. Jury nullification is fine and dandy unless it is literally a life or death matter. So much for being pro-life.

 

[Andvare]

wow, so you guys would have sent people to jail under the fugitive slave act for taking care of runaway slaves?

juror's are not robots for the state, they are the last check on it's power

and we're damned if we ever give that right away because the people most deserving of "judging" others have and use a moral compass while robots do what they're told

No, but I would have done so with the expectation that I would be prosecuted for not following the law.

The jury is there to uphold the law, not to change it. That would be a violation of the basic Montesquieu system.

The law is a piss poor moral compass, but should be created by the society, not an individual*.
I am "free" not to follow the laws I do not agree with, as long as I acknowledge that doing so might put me in jail, and accept this. An injustice or failed system, should either be fought through the system, or with a rebellion, depending on the severity.


* Yeah, an impossibility, but one does not try to obtain the impossible, to actually get there. One strives towards the impossible to strive towards the impossible. It is the journey that is the ultimate goal.
You never reach perfection, but you can get closer.