In a democratic society, when a person is accused of a crime, they are judged by a group of their peers. Most juries hear testimony, and render a verdict of guilt or innocence, based on evidence and how that evidence violates the established law. Jurors, also possesses the ability nullify a case, if they deem the respective violated law to be unfair. When considering the magnitude of power the ability to nullify places in the hands of twelve randomly selected people, one must consider; whether or not juries should possess the ability to use power of jury nullification. This essay will discuss the notion that twelve randomly selected people should not possess the ability to superseded laws that were established by democratic societies, because they disagree with the fairness of a particular law. Cases were defendants are freed based on any fact except innocence, is a valid reason to keep jury nullification out of the hands of juries.
…show more content…
The ability to ignore a law, because 12 people find the law to be unjust, is a scary concept. Take for example the case of Emmett Till; Till, was a fourteen year old African American from Chicago. He was brutally murdered for the simple offense of accused of flirtation with a white woman. This flirtation occurred four days before his death. The woman’s husband and brother, brutally beat him, gouged out his eyes, and shot him, before discarding his body into the river. The jury took less than an hour to nullify the defendants, who later admitted to the crime.
Jury nullification for a crime such as this, may appear to be one that would only occur in a different era. However, in modern times “George Washington University law professor Paul Butler recommends that black jurors free black defendants prosecuted for minor drug crimes even if they are guilty — what he calls "racially based jury nullification." (Chicagotribune) Another example of the potential misuse that jury nullification poses is that of a jury who chose to release a man charged with the cultivation of marijuana, when his defense argued that the law was “unfair” (Chicagotribune) Law are not created equally, some may be considered less fair than others. The precedence must be established that while some laws are not fair, it is not up to respective juries to simply discard sections of criminal code, that they disagree with. If, jurors were allowed to nullify a case based on personal feelings, it would undermine the entire system, as twelve people chosen to evaluate a case would possess the power to supersede the expressed desires of the people of a democratic society. Conversely, it can be argued that a jury’s ability to nullify would yield positive results. An example of such would be; Pre Civil War, some Northern Juries refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and instead, would not return a guilty verdict to those who had assisted escaped slaves. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a jury will chose to exercise nullification for laws that contribute to the betterment of society. Offering a jury the option to nullify would undermine the purpose of established laws. The distinction between the ability to nullify, vs. the right to nullify, is not an equal thought. Juries have the ability to convict or acquit, based on how they interpret the presented evidence. This is not
The ability to ignore a law, because 12 people find the law to be unjust, is a scary concept. Take for example the case of Emmett Till; Till, was a fourteen year old African American from Chicago. He was brutally murdered for the simple offense of accused of flirtation with a white woman. This flirtation occurred four days before his death. The woman’s husband and brother, brutally beat him, gouged out his eyes, and shot him, before discarding his body into the river. The jury took less than an hour to nullify the defendants, who later admitted to the crime.
Jury nullification for a crime such as this, may appear to be one that would only occur in a different era. However, in modern times “George Washington University law professor Paul Butler recommends that black jurors free black defendants prosecuted for minor drug crimes even if they are guilty — what he calls "racially based jury nullification." (Chicagotribune) Another example of the potential misuse that jury nullification poses is that of a jury who chose to release a man charged with the cultivation of marijuana, when his defense argued that the law was “unfair” (Chicagotribune) Law are not created equally, some may be considered less fair than others. The precedence must be established that while some laws are not fair, it is not up to respective juries to simply discard sections of criminal code, that they disagree with. If, jurors were allowed to nullify a case based on personal feelings, it would undermine the entire system, as twelve people chosen to evaluate a case would possess the power to supersede the expressed desires of the people of a democratic society. Conversely, it can be argued that a jury’s ability to nullify would yield positive results. An example of such would be; Pre Civil War, some Northern Juries refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and instead, would not return a guilty verdict to those who had assisted escaped slaves. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a jury will chose to exercise nullification for laws that contribute to the betterment of society. Offering a jury the option to nullify would undermine the purpose of established laws. The distinction between the ability to nullify, vs. the right to nullify, is not an equal thought. Juries have the ability to convict or acquit, based on how they interpret the presented evidence. This is not