Jury Nullification Essay

Introduction The Oxford English Dictionary defines the rule of law as “the authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; the principle whereby all members of a society, including those in government, are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.” This formal definition commonly references three criteria's: individuals and the collective society are governed by rules that are impartial and equal for everyone, rules are established through a limited government that maintains its own functions within the confines of the same rules, and that the compliance with such rules is rooted in a legal and political culture. The core concept behind

Jurors allow their verdict to be 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 upon sentimental emotions, there is a disregard for logic and consistency through the ability to nullify legal

Trial by jury is perceived as a fair and unbiased manner to determine guilt or innocence of an accused. There are numerous drawbacks to a trial by jury. Jurors have little to no training in the matters of the law, they are only required to know the facts of the case. Judges guide the juries, and aid them in deterring which facts are admissible or inadmissible. Through this lack of legal knowledge, jurors are easily persuade by either side of the opposition. They are not able to use their own discretion, for they are influenced by the prosecution and defendants, as well as the judge. Jurors are also likely to follow the majority verdict, rather than coming to an independent verdict that may extend the duration of the trial. Regardless of these drawbacks, trial by jury is still a fair and effective way to promote and protect individual liberties. Juries are an important check on authority, for without their symbolic position within the judicial system, there would be no power to counteract that of authoritative figures, such as judges and the government at large. The jurors share common societal values. It allows for individuals to participate in the legal system. Trial by jury is democratic, in the sense that it is representative of the