Arguments Against Jury Nullification

In Business Insider article “This is Why Juries Shouldn’t Decide Court Cases” Erin Fuchs argues that court cases in the US shouldn’t be resolved by Juries. Erin Fuchs is completely correct. Cases should not be solved by bias and inexperienced and unwillingness people in law. In the article Professor Peter Van Koppen compared jurors to unequipped people acting as your doctors. In his 2009 essay it states “you wouldn’t want a panel of lay people acting as doctors.” This comparison makes a lot of sense. If you were a “criminal” and you had a case that meant life or death, would you want some bias and not prepared random people off the streets choosing if you are going to die or live? Some horrible criminals get big breaks because some unprepared

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.

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

“The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is ‘a stimulant to the race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice, which the law aims to secure to all others.’” (72 A.B.A.J. 68, July, 1986) With the Court’s ruling new standards were set that required the defendant to show: --That they are members of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendants’ race --The defendants may rely on the fact that peremptory challenges are a jury selection practice which allow those who are minded to discriminate to do so --That these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 [1986])

Racial differences within the court system of the United States can create various interpretations of laws and the impartiality of such laws. Minorities within this country may believe that the criminal justice system has prejudices and may dismiss the legality of certain laws. Jury nullification is a process in which members of the jury exonerate a person of a guilty verdict although the evidence presented in the case overwhelmingly proves the person’s guilt. People within the jury may believe the laws are not fair, do not apply to the particular case, or they may empathize with the defendant (McNamara & Burns, 2009).

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).

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

Juries specifically in the United States serve a very large political significance. Majority of the time they determine the fate of those on trial. Juries are used to protect the rights of the people and work hand in hand with the judge to determine the outcome of cases to the best of their ability. Working hand in hand means the Judge determines what laws are applied to each specific case, while the jury works to decide on the facts. Jurors are held to a high degree due to the fact they must focus on fact, remain impartial, and be honest. Very much power is given to juries in the court of law which in turn shows that large political significance juries hold. While juries hold a large significance politically, one of arguably their strongest weapons is the use of jury nullification. Jury nullification refers to right of juries to nullify, or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that support a finding that the law was violated. It is an extremely powerful component of law because a defendant could have all the facts and evidence pointing to their guilt, but if the jury feels a certain way about a law or situation, then they have the right to pass on all the facts presented and acquit a defendant that in most cases would be found guilty. Also they could use if they found a specific law being applied to the defendant as an unjust law or the way a law is applied. But largely in the past, specifically during the Jim Crow era, it was used as a way to acquit those

I would disagree with Paul Butler’s call for racially based nullification. Butler (1995) states African-American defendants should have all black jury and deems it as a legal and morally appropriate factor in refusing to convict. Butler (1995) believes African-Americans who are tried for non-violent crimes should be allowed set free rather than be punished. Butler further identified that black jurors should have the opportunity to decide one’s punishment based on compassion or “sticking together” rather than ethically legal moral decisions.

C#1 Jury Nullification allows the jury to apply justice and preserve the rights of the defendants in the case of unconventional circumstance. In some cases laws are taken out of circumstance or misapplied. Jury nullification acts as a check on a despotic legal system by interpreting laws as an empathetic human being rather than words on a piece of paper. An example of this being applied is if you were to see a friend choking through their window, you then proceeded to smash their window in order to save the person from dying. After saving your friend they turn around and accuse you of damage to private property. In this scenario if the law were to be interpreted literally you would be jailed. However, any reasonable jury would interpret the case and rule not guilty based on circumstance that written law cannot account for. It is clearly more just to protect the rights of individuals rather than interpret laws devoid of circumstance which they cannot possibly account

Initially, the trial judge instructs the jurors of their responsibility in the observance of the law, and at the conclusion of trial, the judge and the involved parties are not permitted in closing arguments to persuade the jury to blatantly disregard the law (Hall, 2015). Jury nullification occurs when jurors do not convict the defendant because they are convinced the crime or punishment is too harsh or unfavorable (Hall, 2015). Furthermore, this rule only applies to the defense, specifically when the defense has an interest in arguing that the jury should acquit and not follow the law, regardless of guilt (Hall, 2015). Jury nullification is not permitted in most, if not all jurisdictions, and it applies to both the prosecution and the

Rational and Irrational Arguments from the Jurors Susie Morel Opening: Throughout the story the jurors came up with reasonable arguments for their belief of guilt, some rational and other irrational. Old Man argument: Juror number nine pointed out that, the old man made a testimony. The old man said that he was in bed, heard the boy scream “I’m gonna kill you”, ran to the door and saw the kid run downstairs, all within fifteen seconds. Yet how is all that possible for a man who carried two canes and had two strokes within the past two years.

In the Australian legal system, juries have been the subject of debate for many years. Should we have them for criminal trials or will justice be done better through trial by judge alone?

William the Conqueror introduced the jury system into England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings. It wasn’t until the 14th century when their roll came to determiner of fact in a case.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that