Pros And Cons Of Jury Nullification

In America’s justice system, a grand jury is a group of citizens called to decide whether probable cause exists to believe that a suspect committed the crime with which she or he has been charged (Gaines G-4). In the Central District of California, prospective jurors who report and are not excused or postponed, the Jury Clerk will use a computer program to randomly select 23 members and ten alternates for each grand jury. A grand jury designated “investigatory” meet for a 12-month term, while a grand jury designated “accusatory” meets for a 6-month term. A grand jury has 23 members and meets once a week, always on the same weekday. Grand juries do not meet on weekends or Mondays. The average workday is 5 hours. Absences for medical appointments, vacations, graduations, etc. may be accommodated, but 16 members must be present for the grand jury to conduct business. The grand jury serves the United States District Court, Central District of California. In contrast, a trial jury is asked to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented during a civil or criminal trial; a grand jury meets in secret to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a formal criminal charge against someone. That formal criminal charge is called an “indictment” (Central).

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).

Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a defendant who it believes is guilty of the crime he is charged (Hickey, 2010. p. 370). This is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. If we are going to allow jury nullification we may as well not take up the tax-payer’s money to even take it to trial. Nullification – The act of making a law null and void (nullifying). For example, during prohibition, many juries found defendants innocent, even when the state had proven its case, because they did not think the law should exist. State legislatures also have nullified federal laws within their borders, creating a nullification crisis for the federal

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

I think the grand jury is better because unlike preliminary hearings, the grand jury see and hear only what is put before them by the prosecutors. Adversary proceeding does not change the grand jury’s decision about a case. Also, grand juries most of the time, return indictments as requested by prosecutors, which makes grand juries notorious for “being rubberstamps for the prosecutor for virtually all routine matters” (Berman, S. J).

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

Jury nullification should continue to be recognized as a part of the Canadian justice system. The power of the juries should stay the same crucially because in some cases the defendant may actually have a reason to not be guilty even though they may be guilty for the crime that they have committed. Authors, Neil Brooks and Anthony Doob discuss about juries and the strengths and weaknesses about them and jury nullification. Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal discusses about Krieger 's Appeal and the strengths of jury nullification and how the jury following their conscience is sometimes better than following the “rule of law”. Paul Butler suggests that the law should expand jury nullification by allowing jurors who are the same race as the defendant who is guilty be free which I believe should not be added in the criminal justice system because of the many negative outcomes it may cause in society. Jury nullification is when a jury that takes part in a case believes that the defendant is not guilty even though he/she is guilty for the crime that they have caused by using their conscience instead of considering the facts that they have been presented by the law and that follow the rule of law. Jury nullification should continued to be recognized and the power of juries should be limited because of many reasons. Although jury nullification may be a positive factor to a defendant and to society as well, sometimes it won 't be if the power of juries stays the

Criminal trials depend on the jury’s decision on whether a defendant is guilty or not of the crimes they are charged with. After examining the evidence and testimony during the trail, the jury will decide if the defendant broke the law. A judge will give specific instructions to follow, and the laws that govern the proceedings of the case.

Jury nullification- The juries power disregard or nullify the Judd's instructions. They don't have the preconception about

Jury nullification and selective enforcement adhere to the principle of personal beliefs and values, which results in individuals making certain decisions in disagreement to a law or the type of person being dealt with. Juries and law enforcement authorities, particularly, should be restricted from employing their personal ideals into situations where neutrality is needed. Professional integrity is needed not only to be just to the participants of the event, but to make the system run smoothly as well.

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?

R v Young (1995) where the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial of a man

In my opinion, the precrime system of permanently jailing would-have-been murderers is not morally better than the alternative systems. A person should be given a chance to change their fate before being detained. If the murderer is warned about their precogs’ visions of their future crimes, it would be more morally justified. According to Act Utilitarianism, this action will minimize pain for both sides. However, because crime can be motivated by many factors such as emotion instability, financial hardship, etc, it could happen unpredictably. Therefore, the alternative of detaining the crime temporarily would be better than permanent detained. The pain of being detained is less than the potential pain of the victims and their family; so it is morally permissible. This helps to prevent potential crime in the Minority Report.

When the outcome of the hypothesis is skewed then the results can be unfavorable. If a jury convicts an innocent person, then they must also take into consideration the probability of the person actually committing the crime. By taking into consideration the significance level of the evidence, one would have to accept or reject the hypothesis based on evidence. There may be times when a lawyer might be biased toward the criminal and sway the evidence. In this case, the jury, which is made up of random people, would have to decide if there is enough to convict the criminal with absolute certainty. While a jury may not be actually performing the hypothesis testing, in theory, which is what they are doing when deciding if someone is guilty

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.