The Concept of Jury Nullification - Essay Example

Jury Nullification The concept of jury nullification has proved to be a controversial one, based on its double standards. While it appears to match logic, by providing an avenue through which the jurors can apply their conscience to determine a case, oblivious of what the law or the instructions from the judges provides, it appears to be a loophole in the justice system, where the offenders can get away with their acts of crime, without being appropriately punished by the law. According to Professor Paul Butler, the defendants in victimless and non-violent cases have an avenue of being acquitted by the jurors, since they did not cause any harm to another party (Keneally, 942). However, this is observed by those opposing the concept, as making certain crimes in the society acceptable, since the perpetrators of such crimes can go unpunished by the laws. Further, the concept of jury nullification appears to contravene the provisions of the law, regarding the roles and jurisdiction of the jurors. Jurors are supposed to identify and determine the facts surrounding a certain case, while determining the case based on such facts, and leaving the interpretation of the laws to the judges. However, under the concept of jury nullification, jurors perform both the roles of investigating the facts surrounding the case and determining whether the laws applicable to the case are valid. This is because, under the concept of jury nullification, the jurors can disregard the instructions given by the judges, as well as the laws applicable to the case, and instead apply their conscious to determine the case (Shari, 4). Nevertheless, in consideration of the benefits and the problems posed by the concept of jury nullification in the justice system, this discussion seeks to develop a comprehensive argument in favor of the concept of jury nullification. Most fundamental is the fact that Jury Nullification serves as a substantial and necessary defense against discriminative laws. The Jury system is enshrined within the concept of the public justice system. This works towards ensuring that the judgments offered by the jurors resonate with the public opinion, more than the laws. While the laws adapted by many countries are meant to ensure that justice is done to the aggrieved parties, there are some instances where the legislators enacts certain laws in total disregard of the public opinion or interest, but solely fashioning such laws to suit their interests (Keneally, 944). This leaves the general public exposed to the wrath of the legislators, who may be inconsiderate when making such laws. Without a different avenue where the verdict in cases can apply alternative methods, the public would remain exposed to the mercies of the legislators, while following a justice system that does not provide any valid remedy. Therefore, the Jury Nullification concept comes in handy to provide alternative channels, through which the justice system can avoid applying the discriminative laws as enacted by the legislators on the face of it, but put into more consideration, the situation and the circumstances surrounding the committal of a crime, while giving a verdict based on the facts and the conscience of the jurors, at the expense of the discriminative laws, or the judge’s instructions (Shari, 11). Further, considering the fact that jurors are protected from being punished based on the judgment they give in various cases brought before them, the jurors are better placed to exercise justice, without any fear or favor. Additionally, while the laws applied in a given country could be enforced to protect the interests of the government of the day, or even certain powerful individuals or institutions, Jury Nullification provides an avenue through which the justice system can offer checks and balances against the government, through expressing the will of the public, at the expense of the governments will, which could be oppressive to the citizenry (Keneally, 950). Jury Nullification provides new and fundamental basis for cases determination, which the law does not officially recognize (Shari, 7). While the law could be enacted to target certain substance of a crime or misdeed, it may not be privy to the basis and the reasoning behind such crimes. This paves way for an alternative justice avenue, where the reasons officially unrecognized by the law are put into consideration when determining a case. For example, the fundamental social issues such as the issue of abortion or the issue of right to life are covered by the law, but not sufficiently. While the law could either legalize or illegalize abortion, the circumstances surrounding the act of abortion for different individuals could vary. This would create exemptions for some individuals, while holding others liable for such acts. However, within the statutes of the legislated laws, the exemptions provided for could only resonate with the legal basis, while ignoring the socio-cultural basis of such acts, which are wholesomely issues of public interest . Therefore, the essence of Jury Nullification is to give further consideration into the fundamentals, reasoning and basis of social crimes, which the law does not provide for, or which are insufficiently covered by the laws (Keneally, 955). Such issues extend to other forms of crimes such as alcohol consumption, the medicinal use of marijuana and some forms of marriages. While the judges are fully bound by the laws of the land in exercising their legal mandate, the jurors are given an upper hand by directly representing the public interest, opinions, feelings and reasoning. Considering that certain social and cultural issues cannot be fully enshrined or adequately provided for by the laws, owing to the conflicting nature of the social and the cultural systems, it becomes inevitable to have an alternative justice system, which will combine both the legal consideration and the socio-cultural aspects of the society, in determining such cases (Shari, 13). It is therefore necessary to have a different set of acquittal for the accused persons, other than the legal statutes, which is only valid under the roles played by the jurors. Therefore, Jury Nullification provides some justified reasons for the acquittal of defendants, based on the reasons which are socially justified, but officially unrecognized by the laws. Additionally, Jury Nullification provides an avenue through which the jurors can combat the discriminative, racist criminal justice system. In advancing this view point, Professor Butler argues that some criminal justice systems were founded on unwarranted racist stereotypes, which makes it hard for the minority groups to access justice (Keneally, 949). Therefore, the jurors involved in a minority case that comprise of defendants whom they either share similar characteristics such as value systems, economic status, ethnicity or race, with a more open mind, completely aware of the political and the racial prejudices experienced by such groups. This being the case, it therefore follows that, while the judges, who purely applies the enacted laws, would make their determination of cases involving the minorities without any special consideration regarding the political, social and the racial prejudices experienced by such groups, the jurors would factor in the essential reasoning into the circumstance surrounding the committal of the crime, and thus rule in the interest of the minority defendant (Shari, 20). This indicates that Jury Nullification allows the minorities to get justice in cases where they could otherwise have not, since the jurors identify well with them, as opposed to how the judges would do. Much as this concept may appear to create discrimination, it allows for the issues surrounding a certain crime to be resolved by those who understand the reasoning deeply, and identifies with the accused, as opposed to the formal prosecution, where the police are not fully trusted due to their high tendency of misrepresenting the facts, especially through applying an already stereotyped mentality against the minority. This is most crucial in the case of nonviolent, victimless crimes (Keneally, 951). Jury Nullification is justifiable since it aims at protecting honorable motives. While certain acts of crime could be ultimately punishable by the law, the juror system ventures much into the motive of the crime, with a focus on understanding the interest of the public in the matter. On the event that such a crime appears to have been committed in respected to protecting public interest, then, the jurors can apply Jury Nullification to acquit the offenders, which is highly unlikely in a court of law (Shari, 18). For example, In Detroit, Michigan, a case was presented before a jury, where a drug dealer had caused great trouble in the neighborhood, by converting the area into a dangerous zone, where children who used to play freely earlier, were restricted to their houses, since the drug peddlers could shoot at each other in broad daylight, and the police had not acted to stop it, despite being informed for long. The neighbors who were fed-up eventually burnt the house where the drug was being traded, successfully ending the problem and reverting the neighborhood to its normal life (Keneally, 947). While the arsonists were accused before the jury, the jury ruled in their favor and acquitted them, since they acted in public interest, despite engaging in arson, which is crime. While offering the ruling, the jurors observed that the motive of the arsonists was noble, since they did it to protect the neighborhood from the adverse effects brought about by the drug peddlers, whom the police had failed to handle. Thus, Jury Nullification is vital for looking into the motive of the crime, beyond the legal basis, which is solely applied by the judges (Shari, 6). Most interesting, according to Professor Butler, is the fact that Jury Nullification is an avenue for retaining the offenders who do not harm anyone within the society, where they are more needed, rather than sending them to prison, which makes it even more difficult for such people to re-enter the society (Shari, 15). While advancing his argument for the jurors to grant the black non-violent and victimless offenders Jury Nullification, Professor Butler argues that it is pointless to take a person who does not harm others to prison, which is the fundamental argument of his article, “Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System” (Keneally, 945). Considering that the non-violent and victimless offenders do not hurt the society in anyway; other than themselves, removing them from the society and taking them to prison does not solve the problem. Professor Butler cites the high crime rates associated with the blacks in USA as a function of discriminative democracy, which does not give the blacks an equal chance to prosper, leaving them with little options, other than engaging in crime. Therefore, it is on this basis that the jurors should acquit the black offenders, who are non-violent and victimless, since they engage in crime not as a matter of choice, but due to lack of other alternatives (Keneally, 956). Thus, while the judiciary does not provide for a system of retaining the minority offenders, who commit crime as a result of lack of choice in the society, Jury Nullification remains the only viable option. Finally, Jury Nullification preserves societal values. The law is mostly indifferent to the weight of the crime committed by any single individual, as long as the substance of the law holds that the law was violated and a crime committed. However, the case is different in a jury determination, where the weight of the evidence overrides the substance of the law (Shari, 10). The jurors can rule otherwise, in a case where an individual would automatically be found guilty for a technical violation of the law. The jurors are interested in the context and the situation under which a crime was committed, notwithstanding that the committal of the crime would have resulted to the violation of the set laws. Therefore, the jurors can declare a defendant not guilty, under circumstances where they feel that even though he/she had violated the laws while committing the crime, it would be unfair to prosecute the defendant. This is most common in the situation where the application of the prevailing laws would lead to a very harsh sentence, while it stands otherwise in the eyes of the society and the general public (Keneally, 958). Considering the fact that there is no reversal or further action into the case, once the jurors declare the defendant not guilty, t Jury Nullification serves to preserve the societal values, which are otherwise perceived inappropriate, in the eyes of the law. Works Cited Keneally, James. “Jury Nullification, race, and the wire.” New York Law School Law Review, 55 (2010): 941-959. Print. Shari Collins. “Analysis of Paul Butlers race-based jury nullification and his call to black jurors and the African American community.” Journal of Black Studies, 2009. 1-21. Print. Read More