Just to be clear, Jury Nullification isn’t a right, more of a natural consequence of the 2 rules:
Jury can’t be punished for not ruling a certain way
And
No double jeopardy.
You can’t outlaw jury nullification without breaking the first rule and you can’t break the first rule because it’s absolutely necessary for a fair justice system
It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.
The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.
Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.
True, but from the perspective of a juror, it may as well be a right, and calling it a right gets the point across much more efficiently than trying to explain in detail.
Just to be clear, Jury Nullification isn’t a right, more of a natural consequence of the 2 rules:
Jury can’t be punished for not ruling a certain way
And
No double jeopardy.
You can’t outlaw jury nullification without breaking the first rule and you can’t break the first rule because it’s absolutely necessary for a fair justice system
We have a fair justice system?
Theoretically. The structure is setup for one, it’s the individuals that fuck it up. As usual.
Fuck the judges, corrupt
It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.
The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.
Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.
True, but from the perspective of a juror, it may as well be a right, and calling it a right gets the point across much more efficiently than trying to explain in detail.
A judge can overrule a jury if they think the jury judged the law rather than the defendant, however.
Only for a guilty verdict, a non-guilty verdict can’t be overrode or appealed.
That’s why they hate juries knowing about it so much