Equality of Justice, Jury Nullification
Issue 8: “Black Jurors: Right to Acquit? (Jury Nullification)” by Paul Butler, p. 108
Under what circumstances does the author believe jurors should vote according to conscience rather than law? (Butler P.2001) states that. When cases involving nonviolent, malum pro-hibitum (legally proscribed), and victimless crimes, such as narcotics possessions, for nonviolent, malum in se crimes, such as theft or perjury this should be in favor of nullification, but it ought to be an option the juror considers. A juror might vote for acquittal, for example, when a poor woman steals from Tiffany’s but not when the same woman steals from her next-door neighbor.
Does the Supreme Court approve or disapprove of this practice? Why? (Butler P.2001) states that. The Supreme Court has officially disapproved of jury nullification but has conceded that it has no power to prohibit jurors from engaging in it. The criticism suggests that when twelve members of a jury vote their conscience instead of the law, they corrupt the rule of law and undermine the democratic principles that made the law.
Issue 8: “Jury Nullification: A Perversion of Justice?” by Andrew D. Leipold, p. 111
According to the author, what is the correct forum in which people should disagree with the law?
(Leipold A. D. 2001), states that. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper reach of the criminal laws. But the place for them to disagree is in public, where the reasons for expansions and contractions of the laws can be scrutinized and debated by those who will be affected by the verdicts juries reach.
Why does he believe the courtroom is not the place for disagreement?...