Arguments Against Jury Nullification

Section three of Chapter Eight titled Doing Justice begins with the following sentence “It should be obvious that laws and trials mean something.” The role that legislated laws play in maintaining the stability and integrity of our society is something that many individuals assume to be determined by unbiased social convention. Throughout Section three the perceived significance of the law is critically examined. Additionally, the section analyzes the effectiveness of implemented legislation in the dispensation of justice to all American citizens.

In the book, Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the reader gets a demonstration of the jury system, with all its flaws and its positives. In this informal essay, I will show some of the positives and negatives of the jury system. After this analysis, you will see that the jury system is flawed, due to people like Juror 7. Juror 7’s attitude and beliefs are a prime example of how the jury system can have negative consequences.

According to the author Fissell, Brenner M., in the article “Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law,” published in the Legal Theory journal, Brenner states that “It is generally understood that nullification takes place whenever jurors refuse to apply the law to a given set of facts, but there are many different circumstances in which this might occur, and different motivations are at work in each. More precision is necessary.” Linder states that the word jury nullification is defined by the definition nullification, which states that to nullify something is to “render [it] of no value, use, or efficacy; to reduce to nothing, to cancel out (Fissell).” Jury nullification is much more common amongst criminal cases, but one may experience such a thing with a civil case as well (Fissell). Jury Nullification deals with an aspect of the publics overall acceptance on some aspects of the law (Fissell). The term community morality is used to explain the overall influence of a smaller geographic entity on a larger group (Fissell).

There are certain aspects of the United States’ government that seem to be at the core of ensuring democracy for all citizens. These ideas include representative leaders like the President, or the bicameral legislature. Similarly, the jury system is another structure of the government that many people hold close to their hearts. Although it seems like the ultimate way that the citizens can self-govern, is the jury system really the best way to reach a verdict in civil and/or criminal cases? The bottom line is that the jury system is an outdated structure. Specifically, bench trials, or trials decided only by a judge, are much more effective than jury trials because judges are more educated, less susceptible to popular influence, and are not

The effectiveness of the adversary system in achieving justice is successful, providing a equal course of action with affirmation of the jury witness and defendant (Hamper et al., 2009). The effectiveness of the adversary system in achieving justice can include; equality, protection and recognition of individual rights and law as a reflection of community standards and expectations,

Jury nullification is the act of a jury in exonerating a defendant, even though they are truly guilty of violating the law. When this happens, the defendant is found innocent, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. Normally, jury nullification is carried out by a jury that disagrees with a law; this is a way of indicating their disagreement with the law, and their choice not to penalize the person who broke that law. Jury nullification is a

ught about jury nullification as a young law student, I was inclined to be against it. Yes, it could potentially be used to curb unjust laws. But it can also be a vehicle for jury prejudice and bias. Most notoriously, all-white juries in the Jim Crow-era South often acquitted blatantly guilty white defendants who had committed racially motivated crimes against blacks. Moreover, it seems unfair if Defendant A gets convicted while Defendant B is acquitted after committing exactly the same offense, merely because B was lucky enough Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since they’re under no obligation to bring charges against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the

Jury nullification has since quite a while ago entranced courts, scholastics, and society when all is said in done. The force, or possibly right, of a jury to either convict or absolve a criminal litigant, in spite of the jury 's conviction that the law and proof request an opposite result, has mixed debate since its beginning, and keeps on polarizing. As it as of now stands, nullification possesses a position in the sundown, authoritatively denounced by the United States Supreme Court, yet permitted even urged to get by different, enduring assurances of choice jury making. Resounding the conclusions of courts around the nation, juries without a doubt have no privilege to invalidate, however, they likewise most likely have the ability to do as such, as nobody, not even the judge, is permitted to do much to control a rebel jury in a criminal trial. What 's more, finds, that while in many occasions nullification is

The responsibility of the jury in criminal and civil cases is to “determine questions of fact” and apply law as set out by the judge and then, with these facts and evidence, come up with a verdict.

Once a jury deems a defendant not guilty, he cannot be tried again for the same crime, as he is protected by the double jeopardy clause in the Constitution. The argument around jury nullification is that the law is in place to be upheld in the court, not questioned in the trial, hence why the question arises regarding whether jurors have the right to nullify. Recently, several courts, in an effort to protect the law and the judicial system, have removed jurors who have made it clear that their intention is to

The moral and ethical debate on the sentencing and enforcement of capital punishment has long baffled the citizens and governing powers of the United States. Throughout time, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and the vast majority beliefs of Americans, have been in a constant state of perplexity. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Many argue that capital punishment is an absolute necessity, in order to deter crime, and to ‘make things right’ following a heinous crime of murder. Despite the belief that capital punishment may seem to be the only tangible, permanent solution to ending future capital offenses, the United States should remove this cruel and unnecessary form of punishment from our current judicial systems.

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

In considering the effectiveness of the jury system, it is first necessary to understand the roles of juries. Primarily, a jury is a body of legally unqualified citizens who agree on a verdict based on evidence

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.