I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
Can you clarify what you’re actually saying?
If you’re trying to imply that a more moral person would see things your way, I couldn’t care less. It’s a pretty meaningless assertion.
You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.
That’s simply not how laws are intended to be applied. Democratically elected representatives debate moral considerations when designing laws. If you want criminal law to include an exemption for murderers of CEOs that you don’t like, you should write to your local rep I guess.
In the mean time, jurors will just have to apply the law as it stands.
If I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.
That’s the argument.
You might feel thats how things ought to be but you’re unable to support your statement with anything other than the vibe.
We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.
If you feel that someone who kills a CEO you don’t like should be exempt from a charge of murder then you should discuss that with your local representative.
If you want to abrogate your responsibility as a citizen that’s your choice.
I will not be an unthinking cog in a deeply flawed legal system.
That’s the whole debate though. What is your responsibility as a citizen?
I’m so weary of talking about it ad-nauseam.
Ultimately these questions about jury nullification are irrelevant because you’ll never have 12 jurors who think subverting the court process can achieve justice.
The only responsibilities on the individual that are prescribed by the constitution arise under the Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16: the Militia clauses.
You have no other constitutional responsibilities as a citizen.
A legislated law obligating you to apply legislated law in judging the accused would violate the accused’s 6th amendment right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Such a law would make you an agent of the government, not a layperson juror. The legislature can compel you to report for jury service; the legislature cannot impose any sort of responsibility to render a particular verdict.
You have no (relevant) legislative-law responsibilities as a citizen.
You have yet to talk about the most important part of the constitution. The first three words. You’ve completely ignored them all this time. Either you don’t understand them, or you think they are irrelevant. They are the sine qua non of this issue. Ultimately, those three words rebut every single point against nullification you have made, every ad-nauseating time you have made them.
Injustice requires a unanimous verdict. The accused doesn’t need 12 for the trial to reach a just end. He only needs one. A hung jury is always a just jury.