A jury has the right to reach a verdict they feel is proper even if it contradicts the law. If a jury feels that the outcome of a trial is unjust they can exercise their right of jury nullification. The doctrine of jury nullification states that “jurors have the inherent right to set aside the instructions of the judge and to reach a verdict of acquittal based upon their own consciences.” In other words, it states the jury has the right to judge the ethics of the law in any case if they choose. Jury
Jury Nullification Jury nullification means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. So really what this means is that no mater what the law says the jury will pretty much have the right to choose weather the person is going to be guilty or innocent and that is kind of ok in some cases but then again its not in others so we should not expect our juries to judge our laws only the case that person
I stand firmly AGAINST the resolution which states that jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. (Optional) I would like to offer another another definition for the following term from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Jury nullification: The acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact My value for this debate is fairness because it is such a large part of our legal system. My value criterion
Words to be explained: Jury: A body of people (typically twelve in number) sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Nullification: In United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing
break the law? Answering this question leads to the consideration of the following: Should jurors enter a “not guilty” verdict, following their collective conscience, even when the evidence present should correctly lead to a “guilty Verdict”. Jury nullification is the constitutional power that jurors have to address such issues as fairness, selectiveness and compassion, which would otherwise not be part of their deliberation. Each and every day, there are cases held in courtrooms across America where
Historically, jury nullification has been in the U.S. sense the 1930s during the prohibition era when the transportation and sale of alcohol was unlawful. According to research, in previous times jurors have ignored unpopular laws that are applied by the government and still do today (When the Jury Ignores the Law, 2015). Giving jurors the right to exercise the power of jury nullification would be unlawful and injustice. Some history about jury nullification goes all the way back to English law
request to let the jury know of their nullification power. (Linder, 2001). Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect mollifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fates that are charged with deciding. (Linder2001). In the United States, a trial involves an essential division of labor between a judge and jury. The judge is the
a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion
presented to a jury in a court of law: guilty, or non-guilty. In any case, there exists a third option no legal advisor is allowed to tell a jury. Despite the evidence presented, if a jury feels it is morally incorrect to prosecute a defendant, they have the power to acquit them. In order to maintain a free justice system, it is important for a jury to have the power to nullify the law under specific circumstances, much like in the case of John Peter Zenger. The foreign concept to many, jury nullification
incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
influenced by normative considerations, such as what the jury perceives the law ought to be, rather than the considerations of what the law is. Jury nullifications prompts the execution of interpretation, for jurors establish their meaning of the text, as well as their position on the intentions and purposes behind it’s enactment. This is problematic, for a jury may inaccurately interpret the meaning and application of a text. Jury nullification contradicts the rule of law, for through the reliance
here is why they connect. From the beginning of the movie showed signs of prejudice and stereotypes, discrimination and racism. Some of the jury members were quoted saying them and you know how they are! It makes you wonder looking for an African Americans perspective is the jury like this when the jury is all white. One of the scenes that stuck out was; when jury number 10 said “I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn 't he? You know what that trial
which causes great conflict with the other 11 jury members. The lone juror (Juror #8) says that the boy’s life should not be decided on just a vote, he thinks it should be discussed about. So the lone juror states his case on why he voted non-guilty. As he continues to speak he asks to have a revote. So after they tally up the votes, the number of jurors voting guilty and non-guilty has changed from 11-1 to 10-2. This causes and outrage of the 10 guilty jury voters. So as the 12 jurors argue amongst
Cooper Finch Social Psychology 5/6/2014 12 Angry Men Paper The film “12 Angry Men” has many different social psychology theories. This compelling film was written in the 1950’s and was about a twelve man jury that was sitting in on a case that dealt with an eighteen year old boy being tried for first degree murder. The boy’s father was stabbed in the chest with a four inch switch blade in his apartment. The jurors listen to the trial then they go into another room to converse about the case and try
story of 12 men serving on a jury who must determine the destiny of a young man charged with murdering his father (Lidz, 1995). This study represents the analysis of 12 Angry Men movie by applying Tuckman's Stages, to determine if these men acted as a group or a team, as well as analyze the dynamics of this group of men as they weighed the confirmation, demonstration, and personal agendas. In Twelve Angry Men, there is no typical uni-directional association of the jury through Tuckman’s stages of
point of view. His views are just about the same as Juror ten’s, but what the others don’t realize is that on the inside, he is really repressing his emotions to himself in others. Moreover you should leave personal business at the door when you’re a jury member, he decides to bring all of his father and son issues into the room, “Rotten kids... You work your life out!”(12 Angry Men). He is no longer talking about the boy on the stand, but his own son. His prejudice seeps throughout most of the film
issues from this case that are similar to some issues in the play, Twelve Angry Men. Ultimately, throughout both cases the jury was faced with difficult decisions. In both cases the verdict took a long time and a lot of thinking. But, in the end both came out with the right resolution. Sandusky’s reputation of being the guy everyone looked up to made the overall decision of the jury, in this case, inordinately difficult. Jerry Sandusky seemed like a nice guy until they found out he was convicted of
together as a team. In the film “12 Angry Men,” we see a group of jurors who have to decide whether the defendant has committed the crime or is presumed innocent throughout a capital murder trial. As the audience, we witness how challenging it was for the jury to deliberate on a verdict and come to a true consensus because of the different personality role, and negotiation strategies. Specifically, I found six jurors who I felt played major roles in the trial that established informal roles. Some characters
Twelve Angry Men Legal Analysis Brief – Aakriti G The movie Twelve Angry Men is an American drama directed by Sidney Lumet. The film is about an eighteen-year-old boy from the ghetto who is on a trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men who are in one room, separated from the rest of the world, are charged with deciding the fate of this boy. As the movie progresses and the evidence is revealed and we see that all present evidence is against the boy and if the verdict results
Conformity According to Myers and Twenge (2013), conformity is “a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined peer pressure” (p. 188). In 12 Angry Men, conformity is seen in the beginning of the film. As the jury is voting on the suspect’s verdict, there is a hesitancy from a few of the jurors. In the beginning, only a couple jurors raised their hands for “guilty”. Slowly, more and more people started raising their hands as a result of peer pressure from those around them. In