Analysis Of Paul Butler's Before The Law

Paul Butler says in his article, “Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No”, “If you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote ‘not guilty’…As a juror you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you will become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.” This is in reference to jury nullification. It is an actual constitutional doctrine that is premised upon the idea that the jury (ordinary citizens), not government officials, should possess the final word on whether an individual should be punished. As Butler explains, jury nullification is for the most part a good thing. It was necessary to end prohibition, it has caused prosecutors over the years to change tactics when

Offit shares her understanding of being a juror for New York in drug-related cases. Additionally, she continues in making a comment in regards to who should make decisions. Offit specifically says, “…there are better correctives than leaving our freedom to the whims of ‘ordinary citizens’…” This statement implies that Offit perceives the law to be something above the norm. It should not be a power vested in the common individual nor utilized. Rather, Offit’s comment points to such powers being possessed only by officials from the law. This is seen in the continuance as she says, “Mr. Butler’s argument for institutionalized nullification concedes the flaws in the law without proposing a fairer replacement.” There is not a true explanation as to how “institutionalized nullification” would concede the flaws nor does she elaborate on what would be a “fairer replacement” as she does not truly understand the law outside her experience as a juror. All things considered, this coupled along with her perception of law being above the norm leads to this example to be a “Before the Law”