Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic.
There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.
There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.
Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law and convict if someone committed some evil act but technically didn't break any law?
Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide.
Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal.
Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
What happened on the night of March 17th?
Matters of law:
What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that.
The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising.
If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.
Highway cops might have discretion to let people off with a warning for minor violations, but the same discretion isn't supposed to let them punish people who are innocent. State governors have the power to grant pardons, but don't have the inverse power. And so on.
Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By ignoring it, that becomes "the law".
"The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age, we learn more about what is acceptable in society based on all these things.
Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of society and government that forms "the law".