The Jury Nullification Canadian Criminal System - Case Study Example

? Jury Nullification Introduction Jury nullification based on historical information and different cases so far arbitrated through this system, has prompted to the rise of numerous mixed reactions towards its operations among citizens. Mainly, this is despite the act of instituting it by respective state, for instance, Canada is to protect citizens’ rights from oppressive laws. This is by either upholding or disregarding accusations regarding infringements the accused said to have done like in the R. v. Morgentaler’s case whereby the cited law did not adequately apply (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). However, this has always been the norm due to the de facto power granted to juries whereby despite judge’s role of instructing and advising them to act based on the law in question cannot interfere with their final verdicts. For instance, in R. v. Morgentaler’s case the accused were acquitted after the jury found s.251, which they argued violated women’s privileges was true and did not in anyway seem to hold them accountable for their actions. In most cases, jury nullification as evident in the case aforementioned prompt some individuals especially those who have done grievous crimes prefer their arbitration because they are aware of receiving fair judgments incomparable to the magnitude of their charges or all together acquitted. This is evident in R. v. Morgentaler’s case though the involved parties did not prompt the same but owing to then unfolding circumstances about laws’ interpretation disregarded the charges, hence acquitting the accused (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). Acquittal occurs if jury finds the stated law inapplicable, oppressive as well as unpopular based on their interpretation and other aspects that may influence their irrevocable verdicts them like morality. For instance, in R. v. Morgentaler the prosecution side after the accused cited s.251 compelled female gender against their privileges to carry fetus to term resulted to using section one of the charter, which was unacceptable by jury (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). This essay seeks to address individual opinion concerning jury nullification and whether based on information so far gathered Canadian regime ought to either expand or curtail it. What do you think of jury nullification? Despite numerous negative responses anti jury nullification, I think its role is more of upholding the execution of justice with consideration of morality. However, this in many incidences may differ with both judge and claimants’ anticipations concerning varied laws, which they cite the accused might have infringed based on the case at hand. Since, in all their undertakings and verdicts juries make certain fundamental considerations whose core purpose is to ensure fair trial of all parties involved in the case. However, due to their contrary verdicts to those of the involved parties may seem either unwise or favoring a particular party/side. This is especially evident when the jury nullifies a law that renders one guilty of having violated whereby with the aid of their interpretation pronounce it being conflicting. Hence, the accused acquitted for having done wrong as in the R. v. Morgentaler case where the claimant was very sure the specialists were quilt. However, the case overturned when the specialists cited s.251 violated women’s rights by compelling them to carry to term fetus that may in process subject them to both emotional and psychological distress (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). This is upholding of morality, justice and vulnerable people’s rights as well as protecting those who may not have adequate knowledge concerning interpretation of a certain laws. However, with the intervention of jury the accused end up getting fair judgment or acquitted if the law is oppressive or unpopular as in the case R. v. Morgentaler where the prosecution’s side ended up using another law to defend the cited infringed law (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). Based on my opinion, this does not imply judges compared to juries are incapable of effective interpretation of law and other aspects surrounding the accused case (Shone, 2010). However, it implies one’s immense knowledge cannot guarantee him or her always to be making right and wise decisions especially in areas where justice is inevitable (Shone, 2010). This is regardless of judges being more knowledgeable compared to juries whereby their intention contrary to the latter is to show power, dishonesty and subservience to legislatures that fail to guarantee justice to the involved parties (Shone, 2010). This is because judges’ actions in terms of arbitrating cases in most cases seem to be on the claimants’ side ready to sentence the accused equal to the magnitude of varied offences he or she has committed. In most cases, this is inconsiderate of meticulous interpretation of the law against the accused and observance of morality that will ensure all the parties get their respective satisfaction (Shone, 2010). Morality in this case implies relevance of the case’s penalty to the accused actions with proper interpretation of law, which the judge on his or her side contends to suit the cited wrongdoing. Based on R. v. Morgentaler case, I think jury’s nullification in Canadian law despite some individuals who contend otherwise represents common people’s shield of protection (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). This is against state’s oppressive and unclear statutes, which under certain circumstances tend to give judges leeway without any vital consideration to issue sentences that are unwarranted (Morton & Frymer, n.d). Since, judge’s mode of arbitration solely considers one side, which is evidence against the accused followed by law that seems to apply without proper interpretation based on laws’ respective applications. Therefore, jury nullification in this case acts as a check on government’s statutes, which it has mandated judicial system through judges to execute them (Shone, 2010). I think in most cases involving juries’ contrary actions concerning certain laws’ interpretation is a call to the respective authority to make necessary rectifications. Juries’ actions in this case, ensure verdicts of this nature by judges would not recur in future without proper explanations such that the accused or claimant encounters injustice under unclear circumstances caused by laws’ improper interpretations (Shone, 2010). Hence, necessary amendments commence with immediate effect or their verdicts serve as basis for future arbitration suppose rectification takes too long than anticipated. However, in certain circumstances jury due to certain influences emanating from influential people or based on racial lines may end up issuing wrong verdicts evident in some individuals’ may claims though these represent fewer cases. This is because most of juries’ verdicts not even state’s regime can dare inquire their basis though some people who have received contrary treatment in the court may contend otherwise citing unfairness. They forget jury nullification core roles is to reject unpopular statutes, ensuring justice and preventing the state from imprisoning its citizens using inappropriate measures, which via the judge it might have determined the case. Is there a place for it in the Canadian criminal justice system? Yes. This is especially in the interpretation of the law where different parties seem to uphold conflicting modes of understanding despite implication being one across the board. These differences in most cases emanate from varied implications of the law, as individuals involved in jurors’ meetings seem to hold varied meaning though eventually they harmonize their divergences (Dufraimont, 2008). Law contrary to other fields where one can prove a concept scientifically as well as experimentally right or wrong, it entails facts supposed to convince those doubting a certain implication result to supporting it. Therefore, in Canadian criminal system due to varied complexities contributed by laws’ jargon entail the presence of jury nullification. Juries compared to judges their knowledge cannot equal to that of judges but verdicts emanating from meetings they hold concerning a given charge are irrevocable. This is because considerations they hold or apply when deciding a certain case irrespective of the evidence does not only involve incorporating varied aspects of the law but morality (Dufraimont, 2008). The other aspect is whether the execution of certain penalty is unpopular; such that the government through its oppressive statutes does not send people behind bars without proper considerations. This calls for meticulous scrutiny of a cited law, which is essential in Canadian system and among numerous states that instituted their laws many years. Therefore, some laws may not adequately apply in their execution whereby with the aid of juries rejecting some and in the process partly accepting others will prompt the respective authority amendment them to align with current period’s predicaments as well as perceptions. This is evident in R. v. Morgentaler case where its period compared to the current also entails certain amendments like one’s security while experiencing circumstances that endanger her life contrary to s.251 (Murchison, 2012). Therefore, I deem the state’s criminal system laws occasionally ought to undergo certain alterations with the intention of making them relevant to period’s circumstances, which is only through jurors raising concerns about them. Since, this is the only way a state can proceed in terms of ensuring justice based on the current circumstances and not what used to be 30 years ago during the inception of Canadian judicial laws. This is because new development especially in the technology entails new laws whereby those institute three decades ago cannot apply adequately. For instance, cybercafe and other related cases where the need for any amendment continue to show up as technological knowhow persist with its complexity nature. In addition, any upheld law or regulation supposed to instill morality among citizens ought to undergo meticulous scrutiny process. This is via initiating emerging of numerous and even complex explanations concerning a given law or regulation for the involved and respective authorities to come up with a conclusive meaning (Dufraimont, 2008). According to Dufraimont, (2008), effective interpretation of any law or statutes entails counterchecking its historical accounts or origins to justify them analytically based on the current aspects. Hence, manage to come up with a certain mode accepted by majority in making it appear relevant with current implications. In most cases, this is extremely tricky and has prompted numerous people think the involved juries acted on racial lines or in favor of an influential person despite having the entire evidence against the accused or upholding a certain judge’s verdict contrary to what masses would have anticipated. This is the nature of law whereby its verdicts in terms of finality is unpredictable before one scrutinizes varied aspects concerning the law against morality in arriving at a quality decision. Therefore, placement of jury nullification in Canadian criminal system is not an aspect to ignore or assume if the entire system wants to uphold democracy in a state where the regime due to its exceptional powers exploits those appear to be on the wrong side of the law (Shone, 2010). In addition, numerous laws devised may be conflicting whereby due to lack of proper check by a specialized body those whose actions seem to have infringed them may end up suffering in vain. This is especially by serving unnecessary or wrong sentences that do not reflect sound or popular justice conceptions relevant to a certain period. In his study, Murchison (2012) relays three cases (R. v. Morgentaler, R. v. Latimer and R. v. Krieger) whose verdicts came to successful completion though disappointing some parties but it prompted to the amendment of conflicting Acts. Hence, implying jury nullification in Canadian system, which has over 30 years since its inception, is indispensable. Since, jurors are the ones who despite their role being checking on regime’s powers prompt to proper restructuring of statutes as evident in R. v. Morgentaler case where certain laws presented to them in quest to come up with an effective culmination were conflicting (Murchison, 2012). Therefore, jurors could not use them to impose unwarranted penalty to the accused despite having proven evidence. Since, this will translate to violating one’s privileges and more so, by jurors who ought to protect the victim. Should its use be expanded or curtailed in Canada? Jury nullification entails adequate expanding due to its indispensable roles of checking the regime does not impose automatic and unreasonable sentences on its citizens who through due process would have benefited through acquittal. This is because by curtailing their power is similar to depriving them the necessary mechanisms they ought to operate with, hence inflict fear while undertaking their roles. Consequently, this will not grant then an elevated platform meant to protect states’ citizens. In his study Cipriano (2012), referring to Canadian criminal system cites jury nullification despite their limited knowledge compared to judges; they normally act anti oppression of the common person. This is because judge’s role is to issue a law for the jurors to decide the best penalty befitting a given person whereby the latter evaluates the evidence based on facts as they appear and not trying to imply some have an implications of other varied inclinations (Cipriano, 2012). Therefore, eliminating or curtailing judges would imply state through judges would be imposing unpopular and repressive laws on its citizens. Since, most of them do not have adequate knowledge regarding law jargon to the extent of defending themselves or adopt the right channels (Cipriano, 2012). Therefore, juries in their case emerges as a remedy of charges facing them evident from the accused Dr. Henry Morgentaler in how he appeared numerous times before jurors with acquittal but law continued to drag them to face unwarranted court penalties (Cipriano, 2012). Curtailing of jury nullification power will yield to unfair and imbalanced justice because the state through its respective authorities will only be recycling outdated precepts (Cipriano, 2012). The latter will emanate from absence of law scrutiny and necessary questioning of its applicability with the current relevance. Since, law like any other organization’s strategy ought to evolve such that it will feature the aspects of current generations but not to the contrary. This is evident with some American states legalizing gay marriages that were unheard of 30 years ago. Based on McDaniel, (2009) sentiments, juries in entire judicial system comprise the most essential body charged with the mandate of ensuring justice though the arbitration ought to be relevant with the present circumstances. Therefore, curtailing or elimination of jury system justice will be only an exclusive domain of the elite (McDaniel, 2009). This is because their actions and penalties based on laws they have already stated will be unquestionable leave alone being irrevocable. Consequently, this will turn out to be detrimental to the public whereby most of them after judge’s arbitration will only end up serving long sentences in jail. Conversely, some people may cite curtailing jury nullification will lessen the occurrences of racial influenced verdicts especially in US (Collins-Chobanian, 2009). These encompass favoring one side via giving fair judgments and being inhuman when dealing with an accused person belong a different race from those of the Jurors. However, based on Paul Butler’s argument the state ought to ensure there are jurors of different races, which in this are African Americans (Collins-Chobanian, 2009). Butler’s call and insinuation similar to those of other people having the same perspective may not applicable in the current world where checks are not only run by jurors but also other bodies that for long have been extremely vocal. This is to support juries and their autonomy whereby tempering with them translates to allowing the state infringe people’s privileges of fair judgment as well as receiving justice in all lawsuits, which they involve themselves. Conclusion Jury nullification in Canadian criminal system despite numerous opposing arguments plays a significant role in safeguarding people’s rights evident from the arbitration of R. v. Morgentaler case where there was acquittal of the accused. The accused who were specialists had set up clinic according to the then s.251(4) code, which is currently s.287(4) with the intention of conducting abortions (R. v. Morgentaler, 1998). However, they found themselves accused of having infringed s.251 though finally after appearing before jury with their argument declared innocent. This is because jury despite evidence that was before them found specialists’ based on s.251 where the stated violated the female gender’s privileges true. This is irrespective of the prosecution preventing s.251 with section of the charter (R. v. Morgentaler, 1998). Hence, depicting the role of jury nullification whose verdicts are unquestionable even by the judge who in most case is more knowledgeable compared to jurors. Jury nullification in this case acts as sensitizing tool or check to the state’s regime together with its respective authorities to rectify oppressive and unpopular laws. Therefore, based on my opinion I think jury nullification has a place in Canadian criminal system to protect citizens and those may found themselves confronted by both oppressive and unpopular laws (Cipriano, 2012). References Cipriano, G. (2012). Jury nullification: Best-kept legal secret. The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1038867222?accountid=458 Collins-Chobanian, C. (2009). Analysis of Paul Butler's Race-Based Jury Nullification and His Call to Black Jurors and the African American Community. Journal of Black Studies, 39(4). Dufraimont, L. (2008). Evidence Law and the Jury: A Reassessment. McGill Law Journal. 53 (2), p199-242. 44p. McDaniel, B. (2009, Jun 07). Civil juries play key role in system. Times - Colonist. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/348360371?accountid=458\ Morton, J. C. & Frymer, S. M. (n.d). Jury Nullification? Retrieved from http://www.smhilaw.com/Publications/ART-0507-JuryNullification.pdf Murchison, M. J. (2012). Law, morality and social discourse: Jury nullification in a canadian context. (Order No. MR93608, Carleton University (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 90. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1367082644?accountid=458. (1367082644). R. v. Morgentaler. (1988). 2 NZLR 322. Retrieved from http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc- csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/288/index.do Shone, Steve J. Lysander Spooner: American Anarchist. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2010. Internet resource. Read More