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?

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    You haven’t actually rebutted anything I’ve said.

    Jurors have no responsibilities to the justice system

    That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.

    A system where jurors just nullify cases when they don’t dig the vibe is obviously not a justice system.

    The only reason the western world is falling all over themselves to believe in jury nullification is because our justice system is completely unjust and wealthy people can just string things out indefinitely.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.

      Enlighten me. What do you think that reason is?

      From where I’m sitting, you have dismissed the entire purpose of a layperson jury as “semantics”, so I would really like to know what “reason” you are talking about.

      • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The role of the jury in criminal trials is to review questions of fact and to determine guilt or innocence according to the law.