Jury Nullification (full resolution in R1)

Jury Nullification (JRNL) allows jurors to intervene when they perceive injustice. However, the impact of returning a verdict that is against passed law, and therefore granting the defendant's innocence, undermines the law abiding principles of our society. Therefore, I negate the resolution. Perception of Morality This debate revolves around the idea of the perception of the jury and the decision that is reached based upon the interpretation of a given law by the jury members. JRNL wrongly gives powers to the jury, like being able to decide the morality of a law themselves and return a verdict reflecting that decision. There are plenty of outside factors that can shift the emotions of a juror or an entire jury, and cloud normally logical decisions (based upon passed law) with emotion. Examine this quote from Aristotle (1), “The Law is reason, free from passion. ” This quote is spot on because it perfectly highlights how jurors should return verdicts, but everyone knows that humans are not perfect, which brings me to my second point. All the prosecutors or the defense attorneys have to do is use emotion to sway jurors onto their side. “Research suggests individuals frequently make decisions that are congruent with their mood-state… Forgas and Bower (1988) posited that judgments are more likely to be affected by mood-congruent information when the target is complex, ambiguous, and there is no pre-existing evaluation of the target. Typically, this is the context in which a juror must make a decision about a defendant. ” As this evidence shows, from my first source, emotions play a huge role in how the jury returns a verdict in most cases. Therefore it is not too out of place to say that a jury could nullify a law if one side did a good enough job of lacing their arguments with emotion, a good enough job to convince the jury that the law in question is immoral. There is a huge problem with this process. First, it is essentially removing the ability to enforce a passed law based upon the perception of a jury, which I will elaborate more on later. Second, jury nullification serves little purpose in cases where a law was legitimately broken but the jury found that they disagree with it, because a district attorney could easily appeal the case and then the judge would be obligated to rule in favor of the prosecuting side strictly because a law was most definitely broken (2). The oath of a federal jury reads as follows, “Do each of you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try, and true deliverance make, in the case now on trial and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God? ” Of course the juror has the inherent right to return a verdict of their choosing, based upon careful consideration. However, to nullify a law based upon a perception of morality is completely in violation of this oath. Therefore, I stand by my claim that JRNL wrongly gives jurors the power to nullify laws based upon a perception of morality. (1) . http://www.thejuryexpert.com... (2) . http://litigation.findlaw.com... (3) . http://juries.typepad.com... Integrity of the Law and Protecting the Judicial System Our nation is founded upon principles, such as republicanism and the democratic process. Laws are written and passed by legislators who are chosen through the democratic process. Laws passed in national and state Congress generally reflect the opinions of the majority, given that it took a majority of the general population to elect the lawmakers. If anyone has a problem with the constitutionality of a law or just does not feel that it is right, they are free to challenge the law in court or appeal a ruling. These mechanisms are in place so that injustices do not occur in our legal system, so that no unjust law is left unchallenged. Jury nullification attempts to bypass all of the safeguards against injustices that we have in place by allowing a jury to nullify laws based upon a previously defined perception of constitutionality or morality. However, I will make the case that JRNL as a practice is detrimental to the social order that comes from abiding by our written law, and there are already mechanisms in place to serve the purpose of jury nullification. In the criminal justice system, laws that a jury could potentially nullify are almost always enforceable. The penalty for breaking them is a sentence. When juries decide that they perceive injustice from a specific law, they are essentially removing the government’s ability to enforce that law within that jurisdiction, by expressing their discontent with the law itself and acquitting the defendant. This leads to an unequal application of the law, given that in most cases the law would not be nullified by the jury and the defendant would receive their due sentence, which is due if a law is broken. If laws are enforced unequally by JRNL, this is detrimental to the social order that comes from having a carefully constructed and enforceable set of laws. “We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. Upon the court rests the responsibility of declaring the law; upon the jury, the responsibility of applying the law so declared to the facts as they, upon their conscience, believe them to be. Under any other system, the courts, although established in order to declare the law, would for every practical purpose be eliminated from our system of government as instrumentalities devised for the protection equally of society and of individuals in their essential rights. When that occurs our government will cease to be a government of laws, and become a government of men. Liberty regulated by law is the underlying principle of our institutions. ” This quote from the Supreme Court (4) adds to my point that when jury nullification is used, it is detrimental to our founding principles and shifts our society away from being one that is focused on the collective good to one that will opine written law as null without using the safeguards against injustice in the law that have been established for hundreds of years. Giving juries the unchecked power to declare what laws are null, based on their perception, and then shifting the outcome of the judicial process accordingly, is something that we, as a law abiding society, cannot stand for. Once the power to nullify laws on a whim is given to juries, we no longer have the abilities to enforce our own laws. Mechanisms are already in place to protect the general populace against injustices within the judicial system and in our written law. Reform movements have been one of the most effective tools throughout history at changing laws that were unjust and detrimental to the public. The ability to challenge a law in court is shared by all Americans, and this is also an often utilized method in repealing or striking down certain laws we as Americans feel are unjust. All of these methods are effective and efficient at serving their purpose: changing laws that the public feels are unjust or unfair. JRNL gives juries the power to instantaneously declare a law immoral or unconstitutional and the verdict is delivered in accordance with that perception. By allowing this in our courts, we are going against the basic principles of the judicial process and preventing it from doing its job. (4) . http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu... Overview I have successfully fulfilled my burden by showing why Jury Nullification is harmful, outlining factors that contribute to a feeling of perceived injustice by the jurors, and showing that the judicial process is the representative of a law abiding society that will use the proper methods to challenge a law that they feel is unjust. Emotions play a huge role in the trial process, and if a jury is led to believe that a law is unjust or does not belong in our society, they will nullify under the assumption of perceived injustice. However, this is detrimental to the critical value of this debate, social order. Laws are written and passed by elected representatives, and if those laws are deemed unjust, it is the job of society to use the proper methods to challenge it. JRNL prevents us from enforcing our laws, and by doing so, counteracts the social order generated by having a codified set of laws.