I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
If I am on a jury, part of my job is to consider the justice of the law.
That’s the argument.
You might feel thats how things ought to be but you’re unable to support your statement with anything other than the vibe.
We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.
If you feel that someone who kills a CEO you don’t like should be exempt from a charge of murder then you should discuss that with your local representative.
That same system also explicitly enables the executive to pardon the accused outright, specifically exempting them from the laws created on behalf of the citizenry. The system itself tells us that legislated laws should not be considered sacrosanct. The very existence of the pardon tells us that the legislature must be considered fallible and demonstrates that justice should supersede adherence to legislated law.
The juror’s role is external to the system. Jurors are not representatives of the government, and owe no duties to that government, nor any part of that government. The juror’s duty is solely and exclusively to the accused.
Juries typically choose to accept legislated law. Justice normally demands it. Generally speaking, a jury should abide by the will of the legislature. But, they are not beholden. They are constitutionally empowered to determine that a particular law did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the accused, and would be unjust to apply. They are constitutionally empowered to place their constitutional-law duty to find justice for the accused ahead of legislated-law.
Demanding that a jury obey the legislature without consideration of their greater constitutional obligation to the accused makes them a representative of the government, rather than a layperson jury.