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?
I would agree with you if it worked the other way. If jurors could say: okay, he didn’t do the arson, but something’s off and he should go to jail anyway, that would not be a functional justice system. As it is, having jury nullification just makes it a looser system, nowhere near kangaroo court.
Jury nullification can be used for evil.
From Wikipedia:
“White defendants accused of crimes against black people and other minorities were often acquitted by all-white juries, especially in the South, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. An example is the trial of Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam.”
So I do think it’s a bit of a mixed bag.
It can, but I’d still rather criminals walk free than people who didn’t do anything wrong be punished.
I guess it comes down to this: I think twelve randos are less likely to be racist than our legal system.
what do you mean a “looser” system? Do you mean like, good baddies like luigi walk but bad baddies like mexicans or weird looking people don’t?
I mean more people generally walk away. When designing a legal system, you have to decide whether it’s better that guilty people go free or that innocent people are punished. I’m fully on the side of the former, and jury nullification is basically an extra release valve.
Luigi’s obviously a sensation right now, but jn is imo even better for situations like those sisters who lit their father on fire after he raped them for years (I don’t want to dig too deep because it’s depressing, so I don’t have a source, but this could just as easily be hypothetical). The legal system is not going to codify how much the victim must abuse you before your snapping is justified, because that’s impossible. The jury gets to decide on a case by case basis, whether the immolation was a crime or not.
In a perfect legal system, we might not need it, but not only is that impossible, the US has in some respects the farthest from a perfect system currently in place.
Sure. The problem I have with such a “release valve” is that it would be inherently unjust. Of course some defendents of a certain race or gender or appearance would be more likely to have their case nullified.
If you think courts should be more lenient, then codify it in law. The reason why it’s not codified, is because punishments are already designed to be appropriate to the crime.