Jury Nullification

[Natey]

Now this thread got locked http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51830 before I could post a related reply.

Some interesting perspectives were presented, but what are your thoughts on Jury Nullification?
http://dictionary.thelaw.com/jury-nullification

Additional background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
It sounds like Judges don't like to let juries know of this power of nullification.

 

[mightymoose]

Yes, a certain person likes to lock the threads when he disagrees. Its a bit annoying. Just start a new one if there is something you want to discuss.
Jury nullification happens from time to time. It is much like a judge dismissing a case "in the interest of justice".
I believe it is a valid option for jurors to consider. We are subject to a jury of our peers, not to the words on a piece of paper.
I'm not sure how it all plays out in court though.
It is uncommon, and it should be.

 

[army judge]

Most high school (in many cases, middle schoolers) are exposed to jury nullification in government, civics, or law classes. Anyone that's ever heard anything about the infamous OJ Trials in California also learned about jury nullification.

With the onset of Court TV (now, TruTv), I'd be surprised if jury nullification was an unknown concept.

If you've ever served on a jury, it doesn't take a jury long to determine how much power they wield.

What's even more frightening is the ability of a judge to overturn the jury's verdict. What twelve citizens must do in unanimity, one rogue jurist can undo with by him or herself.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Natey]

It appears that juries have been around a lot longer (circa Magna Carta, 1215?) than the United States, and from the very beginning of juries, there was the realization that a group of common people would be in a better position to judge the accused than entrusting a single individual to make such a decision.
Jury Nullification, to put it bluntly, is a way for the jury to say: "We, the jury, disagree with your (i.e. overzealous prosecutor, rogue judge, etc.) legalistic (mis)interpretation of the law, and as such, release the accused of the charges against him".
If judges can overrule the jury's ability to do the above, we are back in the dark days of individuals (e.g. Kings, Emperors, Saddam Hussein, etc.) making unruly decisions over an individual's fate.
Jury Nullification is not the ability of a judge to "nullify" the jury.
The original shoplifting case 2 threads back is an example of a very harsh (possible) sentence for the accused, if she decides to exercise her right to a decision by jury.
It would seem that such harsh punishments were basically designed to coerce the accused to "admit" to offences they might not have committed, to make a prosecutor look good or to reduce the workload on the legal system.
A better and more reasonable solution would be to make the accused pay for maybe 3(?) times the cost of the item and additional fees (court/jury time, loss prevention dept fees, etc.) if found guilty after a trial by jury (which in itself should be a sufficient deterrent for a guilty party to unjustly try to burden the legal system), and not the very harsh and permanent punishment described. Since this wasn't an option presented to the accused, Jury Nullification would be appropriate here, IMO.
I sympathize with the predicament of the accused in that "shoplifting" case.