3 ms·

Can someone explain the legal concept in plain terms? I had thought a jury cannot be compelled to decide one or other way, and that jurors can vote as the will.

hennell 2y ago
Juries are meant to decide based on the case before them in accordance with the laws as written. But jury discussions and motivations are sacrosanct, and you can't be punished for the "wrong" verdict. So technically you can ignore the law and vote how you like, allowing juries to effectively "nullify" a law by refusing to convict on it. But allowing a jury to ignore the law as written means they can convict or not based solely on political leaning, ethnicity, sexuality or religion etc. It's often cited as a way for society to oppose laws they disagree with, but is very much frowned upon by the legal system as it is easily exploited for very nefarious purposes and leads to a very unbalanced system rather than a consistent rule of law.
fasa99 2y ago
The general intent of the jury is to ask, "do you think they broke the law or not" and it's a jury of your peers, from your community, so it's seen as super fair. On one extreme the jury carefully reviews the law as written and makes a judgement focused on the law. Whether they agree or disagree with the law itself is inconsequential, they must apply it. On the other extreme (jury nullification) the jury might ignore the law and decide for themselves, then and there, what is right and what is wrong. In many jurisdictions the jury is encouraged to adhere to the law as written, in some it is "illegal" for the jury to willfully ignore the law but there is no punishment for doing so. The concept of "Jury Nullification" is meant to be a checks & balances if some law exists that is insane or unreasonable or would be morally bankrupt to apply in a particular situation, extreme cases. So the pressure to not apply jury nullification in general is because if it were used in every case, not extreme cases, literally the jury then becomes the congress, the makers of law, and of course everything becomes kind of random and unfair depending on whatever jury you got.
- salawat 2y ago
  You're being a bit disingenuous here. The legal system fears jury nullification because of precedent, and the complete clusterfuck a nullification makes of interpreting common law. Judges and lawyers basically have to ignore everything about that case. The case law, which is considered "discovered", has to be thrown out, because it'll make no sense otherwise. Stare decisis just doesn't make any sense in a nullification situation. This still doesn't mean nullification doesn't have a place. It is a check of the populace on a prosecutor/law enforcement with an agenda, a corrupt judge, or insane legislators/unconscionable laws. Nullification is the most important, and powerful democratic check on the judiciary available. It's also a really bad idea to bank on getting. As voir dire (jury selection) is basically the prosecution devoting all their resources to make sure that they don't get a jury stacked with enough jurors willing to nullify. A judge might also declare a mistrial if they get a sense a nullification attempt is in the works or likely. A prosecutor may decline to prosecute, or petition for a change of venue if they get a sense the populace would just nullify anyway. Judges will tend to be very cross and threatening at the prospect, and will lecture at length about how bad it would be if you chose that path, etc.... etc.... It is very much the judicial equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the system, and the system hates being confronted with it. Long story short, it's a populace's nuclear option with all the baggage that entails. It being employed is a signal that so much is wrong, the populace cannot conscionably allow the system to proceed as normal. It's a wake-up call to all three branches. Legislators that the law they passed may be unconscionable, the executive in that the People cannot endorse their execution of the laws as passed, and the judiciary, in that in no way shape or form can this randomly selected jury abide the status quo.
bdangubic 2y ago
Jury is always advised by the Judge to follow the law(s) which will be explained to them. However, they do have power to decide that law(s) either do not apply or are not just. Though they will also be advised that going “your own way” so-to-speak makes a compelling case in appeals court…
- derekp7 2y ago
  Specifically, the jury has the sole power to return a "guilty" verdict. If they return "not guilty", then the defendant is not guilty. There isn't any justification needed for why they returned that verdict -- just one word "guilty" or two words "not guilty".
adastra22 2y ago
You understand correctly.

hennell 2y ago

Juries are meant to decide based on the case before them in accordance with the laws as written. But jury discussions and motivations are sacrosanct, and you can't be punished for the "wrong" verdict. So technically you can ignore the law and vote how you like, allowing juries to effectively "nullify" a law by refusing to convict on it. But allowing a jury to ignore the law as written means they can convict or not based solely on political leaning, ethnicity, sexuality or religion etc. It's often cited as a way for society to oppose laws they disagree with, but is very much frowned upon by the legal system as it is easily exploited for very nefarious purposes and leads to a very unbalanced system rather than a consistent rule of law.

fasa99 2y ago

The general intent of the jury is to ask, "do you think they broke the law or not" and it's a jury of your peers, from your community, so it's seen as super fair. On one extreme the jury carefully reviews the law as written and makes a judgement focused on the law. Whether they agree or disagree with the law itself is inconsequential, they must apply it. On the other extreme (jury nullification) the jury might ignore the law and decide for themselves, then and there, what is right and what is wrong. In many jurisdictions the jury is encouraged to adhere to the law as written, in some it is "illegal" for the jury to willfully ignore the law but there is no punishment for doing so. The concept of "Jury Nullification" is meant to be a checks & balances if some law exists that is insane or unreasonable or would be morally bankrupt to apply in a particular situation, extreme cases. So the pressure to not apply jury nullification in general is because if it were used in every case, not extreme cases, literally the jury then becomes the congress, the makers of law, and of course everything becomes kind of random and unfair depending on whatever jury you got.

salawat 2y ago
You're being a bit disingenuous here. The legal system fears jury nullification because of precedent, and the complete clusterfuck a nullification makes of interpreting common law. Judges and lawyers basically have to ignore everything about that case. The case law, which is considered "discovered", has to be thrown out, because it'll make no sense otherwise. Stare decisis just doesn't make any sense in a nullification situation. This still doesn't mean nullification doesn't have a place. It is a check of the populace on a prosecutor/law enforcement with an agenda, a corrupt judge, or insane legislators/unconscionable laws. Nullification is the most important, and powerful democratic check on the judiciary available. It's also a really bad idea to bank on getting. As voir dire (jury selection) is basically the prosecution devoting all their resources to make sure that they don't get a jury stacked with enough jurors willing to nullify. A judge might also declare a mistrial if they get a sense a nullification attempt is in the works or likely. A prosecutor may decline to prosecute, or petition for a change of venue if they get a sense the populace would just nullify anyway. Judges will tend to be very cross and threatening at the prospect, and will lecture at length about how bad it would be if you chose that path, etc.... etc.... It is very much the judicial equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the system, and the system hates being confronted with it. Long story short, it's a populace's nuclear option with all the baggage that entails. It being employed is a signal that so much is wrong, the populace cannot conscionably allow the system to proceed as normal. It's a wake-up call to all three branches. Legislators that the law they passed may be unconscionable, the executive in that the People cannot endorse their execution of the laws as passed, and the judiciary, in that in no way shape or form can this randomly selected jury abide the status quo.

bdangubic 2y ago

Jury is always advised by the Judge to follow the law(s) which will be explained to them. However, they do have power to decide that law(s) either do not apply or are not just. Though they will also be advised that going “your own way” so-to-speak makes a compelling case in appeals court…

derekp7 2y ago
Specifically, the jury has the sole power to return a "guilty" verdict. If they return "not guilty", then the defendant is not guilty. There isn't any justification needed for why they returned that verdict -- just one word "guilty" or two words "not guilty".

adastra22 2y ago

You understand correctly.