I wonder why I haven't heard more on the subject of jury nullification by those who visit this site. Are there many others who have heard of jury nullification and the ability it gives to juries to nullify laws which they object to on a moral basis? Jury nullification equates to voting your conscience. What it means is that you, as a juror, have the right to judge not only the facts, but also the law in a case brought before you. With this power, which you will not be informed of by the presiding judge, and may even be told that you do not have, you can choose to find a defendant not guilty simply because you believe that his actions should not be considered unlawful.
This ability allows the people to stop the government from prosecuting people for victimless crimes and for defending their rights. It is this ability which, I believe, many who view this site will find very interesting. It is one action that can bring about immediate change, at least on a small scale but, spreading this knowledge through groups and forums such as this, can have a great impact.
We have nullified all jury nullification discussions.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
With "Libeerty Student's" leave, I suggest we engage in jury nullification and nullify the nullification of jury nullification discussion. In other words, let's reinstate discussions on jury nullification. In Rothbard's four volume set "Conceived in Liberty" there are wonderful examples in volumes two and three (haven't read four yet) there are wonderful examples of local colonist engaging in jury nullification when the Crown tried to enforce various acts for taxation or trade impediments.
Jury nullification historically was a last check on a tyranical government. So, of course the government hates it. In general, prosecutor's absolutely dred the idea. Most judge's are not too fond of it either. Their (prosecutor's and judge's) attitude is that the legislature makes the law. The court interprets the laws. Jurors are required to take an oath that they will apply the law as explained to them by the court to the facts that the jury determines.
The right of jury nullification should be returned to the people. It would allow juries to exercise judgment. Their role historically was not just limited to finding the facts. This exercise of judgment is critical to a free society. There are situations when a good law, e.g., murder, is violated, but sound judgment requires a verdict of not guilty. For example, a father learns that his eight year old daught was just molested by a nieghbor who is thirty five. The father grabs his gun, goes into the neighbor's house and shoots and kills the pedophile. The father's actions were premeditated and intentional. It could be enough to charge and convict him of first degree murder. Defense of another would not likely work because generally you have to see the crime occuring in order to use force to stop it. Once the crime is over, defense of another would not likely work. Nevertheless, as long as he can prove that the neighbor did molest his daughter, my vote as a juror would be not guilty. I would engage in jury nullification.
I was trying to be funny. But I guess nullification is serious business. My lame attempt at humour, has been nullilfied.
liberty student: I was trying to be funny. But I guess nullification is serious business. My lame attempt at humour, has been nullilfied.
To the gulag.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Jury nullification is important, but the chance of using it is pretty slim, and judges and courts are pretty much against the spread of the concept, because they want to control their courts and the jury decisions. In one of the few good points Howard Zinn makes, he talks about jury nullification in relation to slavery cases in the 19th century, and then again to draft dodgers of the Vietnam era. Libertarians tend to talk about jury nullification in relation to drug cases.
The problem is to make sure that people who end up on juries are aware of it, that they are sympathetic to libertarian issues, and that they are in cases where it actually would be useful. Not much use to apply jury nullification to a clear-cut murder or robbery case. Prosecuting attorneys get to help pick who makes it on to the jury, so if a good case comes up, and a potential jurist is willing to apply jury nullification, he has to make it through the questions from the attorney and possibly the judge and not be kicked off.
In short, while I think jury nullification is conceptually important, its actual practice seems rather limited and difficult to apply.
I did think it was funny. I was trying to play along before moving onto a discussion of the topic. Sometimes it is difficult to be funny when writing.
I think that the difficulty in putting jury nullification back into practice comes mainly from the lack of knowledge the general public has on the subject. Everyone has some issue about which they feel the government has encroached too much. For many that would be self defense issues, such as defense of your family against an intruder in your home. While the laws seem to protect the intruder's right more than those of the homeowner, the people in many cases would side with the homeowner. As was mentioned above and seen in Massachusetts, many people are against the personal use of marijuana being criminalized. The very point of jury nullification is for people to be able to vote their conscience. If it can save one person for being unjustly punished for some victimless crime or from an extraordinarily long mandatory minimum sentence, then I believe it is worth the effort of getting the information out there.
I join with the additional answers. Jury nullification does occur from time to time, in spite of the courts' efforts to prevent. Two famous and relatively recent cases demonstrate that it still occurs. The first is the acquittal of the police officers involved in the Rodney King beating. The evidence (the video tape) was pretty clear and the jury still acquitted. The second is the criminal prosecution of OJ Simpson for murder. The evidence there was substantial as well. But, until we allow juries to fulfull there whole responsibilities, examples will be few and far between.
The Fully Informed Jury Assocation (FIJA) is dedicated to this theory.
Unfortunately, we don't have Galt's engine, or a ray screen to help us out with this mess.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap