Arguments Against Jury Nullification

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.

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.

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

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

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

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

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

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,

The U.S. jury system is marked by its relatively strong credibility and positive public opinion. Two clear strengths of the jury system stem from this fact; the first being that juries generally reach reasonable verdicts on guilt or damages (in civil cases) and the second being that judges generally agree with the verdicts/sentencing recommendations reached by juries. However, the source of jury strength can also be a source of weakness. There is an explored by unexplained gap between judge opinion and jury opinion in some cases that leaves some scholars baffled (i.e. cases where judges and juries come to very different conclusions about a case). In addition to this, a sharp decline in juries resolving cases at both the federal and state levels

Fissell, Brenner M. “Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law.” Legal Theory. 19 (2013): 217-241. Web. 26 Oct.

The jury system is a highly admirable and essential concept in Australian law today. It has helped form the nation into a democratic and stable system of government. The system of jury trials is valued as the corner-stone of our free foundations and institutions. Over time, the need and desire for protection of individual rights from society became more and yearned for. The system now shields the individual rights from the invasion of governmental power and is an essential part of the administration of governmental affairs. It appears that as time and years go on, the need for the law to keep up with the needs of society becomes more essential. The law reflects what society wants and within the growing times after 1215, the need for individual

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.

It is the cornerstone of our judicial system. The main questions that are raised are what is fair and what is impartial? Impartial in the terms of the law is a principle of justice which states decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than the prejudice of the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. The Courts presume that jurors can put individuals biases aside render a fair and impartial verdict based on facts alone, however since the creation of the American judicial system jurors has made either conscious or unconscious decision which impacted the outcome of a trail. (Justin J. Gunnell J.D.,