Should jury nullification exist?

[Occam Bandage]

It's somewhat rare nowadays, but ought it exist?

Arguments for: It serves as a check against unfair and tyrannical laws; it places the ultimate power of sovereignty in the hands of the people.

Arguments against: It is arbitrary, incompatible with the universal nature of rule of law, and can serve as an excuse for all-white juries to excuse hate crimes even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

[MADem]

1. What a goofy poll. You might as well ask "Should the sky be blue?"

Nullification exists. You can't get rid of it without getting rid of juries, and requiring judges to make the decision--and even at that, who's to say a panel of judges couldn't torturously interpret the law to suit their agenda (Bush v. Gore, anyone?).

Nullification happens when the jury ignores the law, because they "believe"--for whatever reason--that the defendant isn't well served by the law, or because they think the defendent, or his "group" (be it religious, ethnic, whatever) deserves a break.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. It could also work the other way, in which a jury convict an innocent person

[MADem]

6. Absolutely. The "hang 'em high" approach. nt

[Occam Bandage]

4. Of course nullification exists. If it didn't, this poll would be meaningless.

I disagree that nullification is part and parcel of the jury system. It would not be hard to construct an imaginary jury system in which an decision could be itself nullified and a new trial ordered on determination that the jury's decision was not made with regard to fact but rather with regard to the validity of the law.

[MADem]

7. Well, it is. I'm not going to rehash famous nullifications, but it is part of the system.

We know it is, because it happens. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens any time the jury wants it to happen. We have what we regard are fair verdicts, and then we have unfair ones--for example, when murdering crackers walk free because their peers won't convict them because they think they didn't do much, if anything, wrong.

For it not to be part of the system, there would have to be that very judicial review process where the judge could say "Fuck this verdict, it's nullification" and order a new trial.

There are mechanisms to gripe about how the judge ran the trial, if the defense sucks, if the prosecution cheated, if the police didn't play fair, but I know of no mechanism, save a planted or bought juror, that can argue with the jury for a pisspoor decision making process.

[imdjh]

2. Jury nullification is very much a part of our English law

From Magna Carta To Edward Bushell

The power of the jury to judge the justice of the law and to hold laws invalid by a finding of "not guilty" for any law a juror felt was unjust or oppressive, dates back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. At the time of the Magna Carta, King John could pass any law any time he pleased. Judges and executive officers, appointed and removed at his whim, were little more than servants of the King. The oppression became so great that the nation rose up against the ruler, and the barons of England compelled their king to pledge that he would not punish a freeman for a violation of the law without the consent of his peers.

King John violently protested when the Magna Carta was shown to him, and with a solemn oath protested, that "he would never grant such liberties as would make himself a slave." Afterwards, fearing seizure of his castle and the loss of his throne, he reluctantly signed the Magna Carta – thus placing the liberties of the people in their own safe-keeping. Echard's History of England, p. 106-107 )

The Magna Carta was a great step forward in the control of tyrannical leaders. But its sole means of enforcement, the jury, was often met with hostility. By 1664 English juries were routinely being fined for acquitting defendants. Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn, who was charged with preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit – and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. Under such duress, most jurors paid the fines. However, one juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. As a result, Chief Justice Vaughan issued an historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell's Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury.


http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

[On the Road]

5. That Puts the Question into a Different Light

I'm conflicted about whether jury nullification is a good thing.

But to make nullification illegal in a meaningful way requires prosecuting jury members for a decision of innocent. And that is troubling.