Is it ever acceptable to 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 all evidence points to a guilty verdict, yet jurors decide to sign a “not guilty” verdict. Jurors who make a conscious decision to ignore the Judge’s instructions to “follow the law”, do so because they believe that there …show more content…
For example, in the classic novel To Kill a Mockingbird, despite Tom Robinson 's evident innocence, he is convicted of rape; it was his honest black man’s word against a deceitful white woman 's. Racism held higher ground than ethicality and truth. Jem, a typical young boy, growing out of adolescence, loses all faith in the logic of justice within the legal system, and in people in general. One can assume that if the victim had been a black women and the defendant a white man, race-based nullification would have set him free, no matter how strong the evidence would have been against him. David Thoreau states “Let your life be the counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” (Pg.35).If the government passes an unjust law, Thoreau argues, under some circumstances, one must break the law, and be the one to go against the “machine”, or the metaphor for government. This suggests that when someone is being charged for committing a crime what really should be considered is whether the crime is based off of an unjust law. Thoreau believes that there would be an outcome that would show the fault in government. How is it that government can get away with such wrong actions? Because this is the law, and when Thoreau suggests breaking the law, this is wrong even though it’s going against the wrong
The movie Runaway Jury starts with a shooting in a business office. The movie then continues to people receiving jury summons and people taking pictures of them. It goes on to show Rankin Fitch and the defense committing electronic surveillance during the jury selections. This movie shows how Fitch and the defense attempt to influence the jury to vote for the defense. The movie continuously shows a person by the name of “Marlee” who talks to Fitch and Rohr trying to persuade them to pay her in order for the jury to be “swayed” their way. “Marlee” is Nick Easter’s girlfriend. As the movie progresses, the viewer realizes that Nick was pretended to get avoid jury duty in order to secure a spot in the jury. The movie ends with the jury voting against the gun company and then Nick and “Marlee” blackmailing Fitch with a receipt for $15 million and they demand that he retire immediately. They inform him that the $15 million will benefit the shooting victims in the town of Gardner.
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
Over 80 million Americans alive today have been called to jury duty at some point in their lives (Henley 5). Out of these 80 million individuals, roughly 30% (or 24 million) have been eliminated from the jury selection process due to the use of peremptory challenges (5). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a peremptory challenge is a challenge that “need not be supported by any reason.” Although these challenges are commonplace in today’s courts, several Supreme Court cases have questioned the constitutionality of their place in the legal system. This paper will explore the history of peremptory challenges, theories behind them, a few pertinent cases, and reform progress.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
Runaway Jury is a film released in 2003 and directed by Gary Fleder. Further, the film is an American legal thriller that reflects the novel “The Runaway Jury” written by John Grisham. The firm reflect the process of voir dire; the variety of procedures connected with a jury trial. Moreover, the film depicts the importance of the selection of the jury in trials because they hold the fate of the case. The plot of the film comes into play when a fed up and failed day trader at a stock brokerage firm shows up at the office and begins opening fire on his former colleagues then kills himself. Years later, widowed Celeste hires Attorney Wendell Rohr in hopes to take Vicksburg Firearms to court on the basis that the company’s negligence was involved in the death of her husband Jacob Wood.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
The foreign concept to many, jury nullification, is an often overlooked right of a juror, but has a huge impact on the outcome of a trial, as demonstrated in the case of John Peter Zenger. Jury Nullification exists not as a law in the justice system, but as a logical consequence
Some of the people in the world always ask themselves this question when in the court room “ WHY DID OUR FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECT CITIZEN JURIES TO JUDGE OUR LAWS AS WELL AS THE GUILT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ?” Well the answer is really simple its Because: "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267) "Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those Patriots intended the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power -- representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury -- that each enactment of law must pass before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate it.
Is the jury system a good idea? Many will say yes, and a few like myself will say no. At first I believed, yes a jury system is a good idea, it’s lasted us this long so why should there be any changes to it. Then I read this DBQ and it changed my mind. So first of all, most jurors are non-reliable, a lot of them can be biased and not even care or pay attention to the case they are assigned to, and lastly we have living proof on why we should get rid of a jury, and that is the Casey Anthony case.
The jury system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
It is not explicitly stated in federal nor state law because there was other means of democracy and justice. Although not stated in law, jury nullification is still a right due to the fact that jurors can never be punished for their verdict. Throughout the nineteenth century jury nullification continued to remain an important safeguard and was used by juries in cases relevant to the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition and other unpopular or unjust laws. The right to nullification was not challenged until Sparf v. United States, an 1895 Supreme Court case that argued whether or not federal judges were required to inform jurors of their ability to judge the law in any judicial case. The outcome of case was that the jury still had the right to disregard the instructions given to them by the judge, but the judge did not have any legal obligation to inform the jury of this. The Sparf case led to gradually decreasing support for jury nullification into the twentieth century and present day American law. A jury still has the undeniable right to issue a not guilty verdict if they feel that the relevant law(s) in the case are unfair, however it is looked down upon in the judicial system. The case will either be declared a mistrial if an attorney mentions this right or the juror will be struck during jury selection if they seem likely to invoke this
In 1895, in the United States v Sparf, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's 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).
Jury nullification is an established practice within common law found in the United States. Jury nullification