Download file to see previous pages...
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
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
John Peter Zenger was an ordinary person who only wanted to provide for his family. But at the end of the day, he provided more than what was expected of him. He provided the American judicial system with the concept of jury nullification. And in its aftermath, he also provided the people of America with the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
How far do you agree with the courts' decisions? Introduction The right to a trial by jury is described as a “unique institution” introduced by the Common Law of England and transported to its colonies during the colonial era (Vidmar, 2000, pp. 1-2). Indeed not only did the British colonies retain the jury systems after obtaining independence from the British colonies, but a number of other jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere adopted some form of jury trial (Vidmar, 2000).
The value of jury in the English legal system can be strongly criticized. Of course, currently, juries in trials developed in English courts help towards the reduction of time required for the completion of each case.
Louise Woodward who was Mathew’s caregiver since 1996 was arrested and charged with the murder of the child. In the trial at the Middlesex County Court, she was indicted of murder by a grand jury and was remanded with no bail. In the giving of their indictment against Woodward, the jury took into account the fact that the child had been left in her care from the early hours of 4th February upon the departure of his mother for work until he was taken ill.
Lately, despite the historical importance of the system of trial by jury, it has been facing a good deal of criticism. The detractors of the jury institution feel that this entire system is a form of solecism, leading to a waste of public funds, and exploited by criminals for their own benefit.
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.
It is based on the concept that twelve ordinary men and women, without any particular legal training or even aptitude, are better at determining the fate of an accused (within a criminal case) or the supposed wrongs of a Plaintiff (in a civil case) than other specifically trained to do so.
psychology and the criminal justice system are quite different. The criminal justice system aims at giving punishment to wrong doers while the field of psychology mostly focuses on the reasons behind the offender’s actions. When the
fraud and crimes of all sorts; “Critics say the fact that 87 percent of those arrested are black or Hispanic suggests that the police are deliberately singling out minority citizens for arrests that push some of them permanently to the very margins of society” (Staples,
3 Pages(750 words)Assignment
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Jury Nullification for FREE!