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?

  • davidgro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.