Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDef
(Post 2443302)
I'm not sure I understand the abuse part?
As for oversight, I think jury nullification is actually the citizens way to oversee the justice system. Case in point: the 18th amendment was repealed partially due to 60% of prosecutions involving alcohol being nullified.
|
A fair question.
When most people think of jury nullification, it is in the context of the jury acquitting a defendant who is technically guilty of violating the law, but the jury feels that the law is either unjust or the law is being applied unfairly in this case. That's all well and good and many think it is a noble cause. But that is only one side of Jury Nullification.
Jury Nullification can also be represented when the jury convicts a defendant who is technically not guilty of violating the law, but the jury thinks the defendant is "getting off on a technicality" or the jury feels that an example needs to be made of the defendant.
Consider this example: you are on trial for shooting an intruder and your claim is self defense. Suppose the jury feels that there have been too many instances of people shooting people and claiming self defense and that "something has to be done about it" and chose to use you as an example and votes to convict. That is also a form of jury nullification, albeit a less common form.
It is commonly stated that jury nullification as a venue of sending a message to the judiciary or the prosecution about potentially unjust laws. However, this is only true if the judiciary or the prosecution knows the reason for the acquittal/conviction. A jury does not render their verdict by stating "your honor, we find the defendant not guilty because we are invoking our right of jury nullification". No. The jury renders their verdict by stating "we find the defendant not guilty".
The judiciary and prosecution does not know if the jury means
1. That the defendant is truly not guilty
2. That the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving the guilt of the defendant
3. That the jury feels that the law is unjust
4. That the jury feels that the law is being applied unfairly
Since the rational of the jury is not questioned, there is no message that can be used to change laws. Petitioning the legislation would be a better way of getting laws changed.
Then there is the lack of oversight. There is a real risk of discrimination in the decision of jury nullification. A jury may decide to acquit a white woman by invoking jury nullification, but another jury may convict a black man for the very same crime.
How can the judiciary ensure that citizens are treated fairly if juries have the uncontrolled and unsupervised ability to, at their whim, selectively apply the same law to different people.
The whole purpose of law is that all the citizens know what to do and not do.
How can a jury of laypeople determine if a law is unjust? What you are getting are some people's opinion whether a law is unjust, which is not the same thing as the law actually being unjust.
A law really can't be unjust if it is considered unjust in one situation but considered just in other situations.
If a law is unjust, the law needs to be changed, not arbitrarily nullified.
If the law is just but being implemented unfairly, there is the appeal process.
In theory, jury nullification sounds like a great idea. But the reality does not sound good in my opinion. Allowing 12 randomly selected people to decide (emotionally?) to selectively apply the law, to me, is a bad idea.
