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?
It would seem so to those who don’t have a moral code. It makes perfect sense to those who do. Iykyk
Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.
Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.
Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?
That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.
This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.
You’re the one saying a moral argument is “unrealistic”.
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.
This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.
“We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.
The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.
Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.
While a judge can be legally obligated to issue a ruling inconsistent with his own moral code, a jury is NEVER obligated to return a verdict they believe to be unjust.
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.
That same system also explicitly enables the executive to pardon the accused outright, specifically exempting them from the laws created on behalf of the citizenry. The system itself tells us that legislated laws should not be considered sacrosanct. The very existence of the pardon tells us that the legislature must be considered fallible and demonstrates that justice should supersede adherence to legislated law.
The juror’s role is external to the system. Jurors are not representatives of the government, and owe no duties to that government, nor any part of that government. The juror’s duty is solely and exclusively to the accused.
Juries typically choose to accept legislated law. Justice normally demands it. Generally speaking, a jury should abide by the will of the legislature. But, they are not beholden. They are constitutionally empowered to determine that a particular law did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the accused, and would be unjust to apply. They are constitutionally empowered to place their constitutional-law duty to find justice for the accused ahead of legislated-law.
Demanding that a jury obey the legislature without consideration of their greater constitutional obligation to the accused makes them a representative of the government, rather than a layperson jury.
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.