I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
True. But a judge can do that. A professional judge, who understands the laws he is applying.
Give your reasoning for a layperson jury.
The requirement for a jury of your peers to find you guilty ensures that a corrupt court can not make arbitrary pronouncements of guilt.
You’re getting warmer. You’ve contemplated a corrupt court.
Let’s move our hypothetical corruption to another branch: is our layperson jury supposed to apply laws written by a corrupt or incompetent legislature?
Is our layperson jury supposed to enforce laws maliciously applied by the executive?
You’re still tepid. I’m weary of this silly “what if our layperson jury stands on one foot while sucking a lemon” tete-a-tete. If you have a point then make it.
Of course a jury is supposed to apply the law.
There’s this whole other process to ensure that laws are not corrupt nor incompetent nor maliciously applied called the democratic election of law makers. If laws are unjust then the system is broken.
It’s antithetical to the democratic process to propose that 12 people can subvert the intentions of the voting populace.