Jury Nullification

[RandomGuy]

Interesting bit in an Economist blog. You can, if you think a given law is unjust, find someone not guilty, even if the facts of the case show that they violated the law.


Juries do not only decide guilt or innocence; they can also serve as checks on unjust laws. Judges will not tell you about your right to nullify—to vote not guilty regardless of whether the prosecution has proven its case if you believe the law at issue is unjust. They may tell you that you may only judge the facts of the case put to you and not the law. They may strike you from a jury if do not agree under oath to do so, but the right to nullify exists.
There is reason to be concerned about this power: nobody wants courtroom anarchy. But there is also reason to wield it, especially today: if you believe that nonviolent drug offenders should not go to prison, vote not guilty. The creators of the television show "The Wire" vowed to do that a few years back ("we will...no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war," wrote Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price and David Simon). And the illustrator of the children's book [Go the fuck to sleep-RG] that has every author banging his head against his desk and every parent cackling just wrote a sweet if somewhat simple guide to nullification. The Fully Informed Jury Association (http://www.fija.org/) has more. Happy Friday evening.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/jury-nullification

Not exactly sure if I buy it, but they did include quite a bit of background material.

Very interesting.

[ElNono]

I've heard of jury nullification cases before. They're not very common, but they do exist.

[FromWayDowntown]

There are some who would argue that the Simpson verdict in 1995 was an instance of jury nullification.

[LnGrrrR]

Surprised you didn't know about this already RG.

And courts don't mention it to potential jurors, as it's a somewhat controversial subject.

[boutons_deux]

"It's a somewhat controversial subject."

And of course it would tell citizens that they have much more (disruptive, subversive) power than the courts and prosecutors want them to know about.

[angrydude]

telling the judge you wouldn't enforce a law no matter what the facts were is a good way to get yourself out of jury duty

[TheProfessor]

"It's a somewhat controversial subject."

And of course it would tell citizens that they have much more (disruptive, subversive) power than the courts and prosecutors want them to know about.
There is no right to nullify. They may have the power to nullify, but informing juries of it would be antithetical to our system of justice. People have the power to reform these laws through traditional legislative processes; just because they abdicate that ability through apathy and ignorance doesn't mean they should be instructed to undermine the order of the justice system.

[RandomGuy]

Surprised you didn't know about this already RG.

And courts don't mention it to potential jurors, as it's a somewhat controversial subject.

Heard the term before, but never really knew exactly what it was and what the theory/reasoning was behind it. The .pdf was interesting reading.

[boutons_deux]

"antithetical to our system of justice"

Who Pays, Wins

"People have the power to reform these laws through traditional legislative processes"

bullshit, all legislatures are Pay To Play.

Nothing moves unless somebody's paying for and/or making money off the move.