Is Jury nullification a good thing or a bad thing?

[icehorse]

It's little known that in the US a jury can acquit a defendant if they feel the law he broke is an unjust law. Less frequently, it's possible for a jury to convict, if they feel the defendant is guilty and might get off on a technicality.

Is this "jury nullification" a good idea or a bad one?

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <good>, but this is only in general (to defeat bad laws or recognize unanticipated exigent circumstances).
It can also be bad in individual cases.

 

[fantome profane]

It's little known that in the US a jury can acquit a defendant if they feel the law he broke is an unjust law. Less frequently, it's possible for a jury to convict, if they feel the defendant is guilty and might get off on a technicality.

Is this "jury nullification" a good idea or a bad one?

I think it is a necessary thing. In fact it is the whole reason for having a jury of your peers in the first place. If it was just a matter of making a legal decision on whether or not a law was broken people with law degrees would be the best to answer that question. But we have juries of peers make that decision. The reason we have peers make the decision is so they can nullify if they feel it is the right thing to do.

 

[freethinker44]

I used it while I was on jury duty. Voted not guilty on any drug charges, even though they were obvious guilty and even admitted it in some cases, and on possession of a deadly weapon for a pocket knife, that was probably technically illegal, the prosecutor was trying to pass off as a switchblade.

 

[sun rise]

I once had a discussion with a judge because I told him I could not vote to convict on a "felony murder" charge because I thought the law was wrong - I was in fact arguing that I would invoke jury nullification while not knowing it was a legal concept at the time. (felony murder is when there's something like robbery and one criminal shoots someone but his accomplice is charged with the same crime on the basis that the second guy is liable for whatever happens during the commission of a crime. I would not have had a problem sitting on the jury if the guy was charged with the burglary etc, but the felony murder charge was not something I believed in.

 

[Valjean]

The law is made for man, not man for the law. The spirit of the law must always trump its letter.

In the US The People are the highest authority in the land. The government, including the judiciary, exists to represent and promote the interests of the people. In the courtroom the people are represented by the jury, making the jury, or its elected foreman, the highest legal authority in the courtroom.
Judges and prosecuters hate this, and try to suppress any awareness of it. Just mentioning it is usually enough to get you eliminated from jury duty, but, as fantome pointed out, this is the whole purpose of a jury.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In the courtroom the people are represented by the jury, making the jury, or its elected foreman, the highest legal authority in the courtroom.

1) Bench trials
2) The judge can overturn verdicts
3) Judges can throw just about anybody in the courtroom in jail without a trial (being held in contempt, if memory serves can mean a year in jail)
4) Judges determine what evidence the jury sees
5) Judges can instruct juries to ignore any evidence they see fit
6) Judges can dismiss juries
and

Just mentioning it is usually enough to get you eliminated from jury duty

The judge is the "highest legal authority in the courtroom." In fact, thanks to precedence, judges effectively create laws.

 

[Politesse]

The only problem with it is that I think many juries are unaware of their powers in this regard.

 

[Curious George]

The only problem with it is that I think many juries are unaware of their powers in this regard.

Isn't that the point? That it is only then used in the circumstances so extreme that a person, though guilty, cannot consciously be held accountable. Not because you like the person, or you don't want harm to come to the person, or even you feel the person was somewhat justified. But, that despite guilt conviction itself would be such a violation of your moral principles that the law simply should not apply. So much so, that you will actually ignore the law rather than convict.

If juries were aware then they would think themselves acting within the law and guilty parties would go free without this same level of conviction on behalf of the jury (pun intended).

 

[Politesse]

Isn't that the point? That it is only then used in the circumstances so extreme that a person, though guilty, cannot consciously be held accountable. Not because you like the person, or you don't want harm to come to the person, or even you feel the person was somewhat justified. But, that despite guilt conviction itself would be such a violation of your moral principles that the law simply should not apply. So much so, that you will actually ignore the law rather than convict.

If juries were aware then they would think themselves acting within the law and guilty parties would go free without this same level of conviction on behalf of the jury (pun intended).

I see your point, however, my concern is that some juries would be more aware than others of this prerogative, leading to some possibility of general inequalities in this arena. I wonder what demographic statistics would teach us about who does tend to end up at the receiving end of a jury nullification?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I see your point, however, my concern is that some juries would be more aware than others of this prerogative, leading to some possibility of general inequalities in this arena.

You raise an important point. The concept of being tried by a jury of peers was absolutely essential when the alternative was anything from trial by combat to simply being condemned without a trial. However, lawyers (whether they work for the defense or prosecution) rely rather fundamentally on jury ignorance to manipulate the outcome. I don't want a jury of my peers. I want a jury informed about the legal system, laws, logic, and all the things that would make them best able to evaluate the evidence.

 

[fantome profane]

1) Bench trials
2) The judge can overturn verdicts
3) Judges can throw just about anybody in the courtroom in jail without a trial (being held in contempt, if memory serves can mean a year in jail)
4) Judges determine what evidence the jury sees
5) Judges can instruct juries to ignore any evidence they see fit
6) Judges can dismiss juries
and

The judge is the "highest legal authority in the courtroom." In fact, thanks to precedence, judges effectively create laws.

Mostly correct, but two points. First Judges cannot overturn not-guilty verdicts. That is one of the points of nullification, even if the judge thinks the defendant is absolutely guilty there is nothing he can do once the jury nullifies. The judge can over turn guilty verdicts, but cannot overturn not-guilty verdicts.

And similar to this point, the judge can instruct the jury to ignore evidence, but he cannot actually force them to ignore it. If the jury comes back with a not-guilty verdict that is based on evidence the judge told them to ignore, there is nothing the judge can do about it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First Judges cannot overturn not-guilty verdicts.

They can't determine that the defendant is guilty, true. But they can determine that a not-guilty verdict requires another trial.

And similar to this point, the judge can instruct the jury to ignore evidence, but he cannot actually force them to ignore it.

Quite literally. Barring neurophysiological disorders and the like, it is impossible for humans to ignore evidence like this. But as judges can dismiss the entire jury if they think exposure to evidence has biased the jury, it really doesn't matter.

there is nothing the judge can do about it.

I don't think that's true, but haven't done the leg-work to confirm. In the meantime:
"In criminal cases, judges may disregard a jury’s guilty verdict and acquit or grant a new trial if they believe the evidence was insufficient to support the decision made by the jurors. Judges may also set aside a verdict if they believe the verdict was reached on a basis that violates the U.S. or respective State constitution or if the legal theory on which the jury based their decision does not conform to the law."
(source)
While the first part is exactly as you describe, there is no restriction in the bolded section that limits the ability to set aside a verdict only if it was not-guilty.

 

[fantome profane]

They can't determine that the defendant is guilty, true. But they can determine that a not-guilty verdict requires another trial.

umm, no. No they can't.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

umm, no. No they can't.

Double jeopardy refers to being tried for the same crime twice, which means that the trial has to be completed. If (as in the source I provided, among others) the judge decides the entire trial to be invalid (whether the judge sets the verdict asides or just grants a motion for a retrial), then double jeopardy doesn't apply.

 

[Curious George]

You raise an important point. The concept of being tried by a jury of peers was absolutely essential when the alternative was anything from trial by combat to simply being condemned without a trial. However, lawyers (whether they work for the defense or prosecution) rely rather fundamentally on jury ignorance to manipulate the outcome. I don't want a jury of my peers. I want a jury informed about the legal system, laws, logic, and all the things that would make them best able to evaluate the evidence.

I wonder if revealing an online identity could be grounds for a mistrial if it wasn't approached in voir dire and one of the jury turned out to know you as legion? Facebook connections don't seem to matter, however wherein one is interacting more...hmm...curious.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

...and one of the jury turned out to know you as legion?

Legion onoma moi, hoti polloi esmen/Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν

 

[Revoltingest]

The judge is the "highest legal authority in the courtroom." In fact, thanks to precedence, judges effectively create laws.

Then either the judge or the jury can be the highest legal authority, depending upon circumstances.

Legion onoma moi, hoti polloi esmen/Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν

Are you trying to claim you're a "hotty"?
Without pix, I ain't buy'n it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Then either the judge or the jury can be the highest legal authority, depending upon circumstances.

The thing is, the judges determine the circumstances.

Are you trying to claim you're a "hotty"?
Without pix, I ain't buy'n it.

Just picture Jonny Depp, Matt Bomer, Colin Ferrall, Jason Statham, Jared Padalecki, Jensen Ackles, and Brad Pitt rolled into one perfect combination of all of these, and you'll get a mental picture that is far worse than me on a bad day. So....no need for a picture, right? Because that would totally ruin my lies and delusions.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is, the judges determine the circumstances.

In cases where the defendant demands a jury trial, & the Petty Offense Doctrine doesn't apply, the jury has enormous power to find one "not guilty".
They may weigh evidence as they please, & even nullify the law.
That's an awful lotta power, & it's final authority.

Just picture Jonny Depp, Matt Bomer, Colin Ferrall, Jason Statham, Jared Padalecki, Jensen Ackles, and Brad Pitt rolled into one perfect combination of all of these, and you'll get a mental picture that is far worse than me on a bad day. So....no need for a picture, right? Because that would totally ruin my lies and delusions.

Without a good pic,
you're just a dumb hick.