I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
True. But a judge can do that. A professional judge, who understands the laws he is applying.
Give your reasoning for a layperson jury.
The requirement for a jury of your peers to find you guilty ensures that a corrupt court can not make arbitrary pronouncements of guilt.
You’re getting warmer. You’ve contemplated a corrupt court.
Let’s move our hypothetical corruption to another branch: is our layperson jury supposed to apply laws written by a corrupt or incompetent legislature?
Is our layperson jury supposed to enforce laws maliciously applied by the executive?
You’re still tepid. I’m weary of this silly “what if our layperson jury stands on one foot while sucking a lemon” tete-a-tete. If you have a point then make it.
Of course a jury is supposed to apply the law.
There’s this whole other process to ensure that laws are not corrupt nor incompetent nor maliciously applied called the democratic election of law makers. If laws are unjust then the system is broken.
It’s antithetical to the democratic process to propose that 12 people can subvert the intentions of the voting populace.
And there is a whole process for ensuring the courts are not corrupt or malicious as well: the appellate process.
Yet, you allowed for a layperson jury to perform an additional check on the judicial branch.
What is the constitutional basis for your allowance of this check against the courts? How is this check restricted to only the courts, and not to the legislature or the executive?
Those 12 people are members of the voting populace. A random selection in unanimous agreement on a particular application of the law.
They aren’t subverting the intentions of the voting populace. They are applying the intention of the voting populace to the particular circumstances of the case.
How should a jury operate in a broken system? If the laws are unjust, is the jury supposed to enforce that the injustice, or are they supposed to provide a remedy to that injustice?
Any observer can see that the jury is in place to provide a check against the judiciary and the executive. Police can’t simply make accusations and have a judge pronounce a punishment without a jury to apply the law.
There’s a well established system with which to check the legislature. We elect representatives who debate proposed changes to legislation before passing it in to law.
This doesn’t require jury nullification. The intention of the voting populace is encoded in these things called laws. A judge is on hand to assist a jury in interpreting the law, and applying relevant precedents. On this basis a jury can determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges against them.
Comically, in my first post I said that this is where these discussions usually end up. You don’t like the idea of living in a broken society so you’re trying to support your belief that there’s a mechanism in place to fix it all. Of course a jury is supposed to enforce unjust laws. Courts often produce unjust outcomes, puppies die sometimes. Having a jury just make up the law based on how much they like the defendant or dislike the victim hasn’t provided very just outcomes in the past.
You started with:
And now you’ve added a check against a corrupt executive. 2/3 of the way there.
There are well established system with which to check both the executive and the judicial branches, yet you have now acknowledged the jury serves as an additional check on both.
Actually, no. The “voting populace” is not the legislature. The legislature writes the laws.
You’ve acknowledged the possibility of corruption in the courts; you’ve acknowledged the possibility of corruption in the executive branch. Despite there being clear checks and balances on both branches, you’ve acknowledged that the jury also serves a role against these corruptions.
I’m going to ask again, though: What is the constitutional basis for the jury’s check on the judicial branch and the executive branch? What is the constitutional basis for any of the jury’s powers?
What constitutional basis is there for your claim that the jury must support the legislature?
Ok. Then let’s not fuck around with hypotheticals, and go straight to the “Fugitive Slave Act of 1850”.
A law enforcement agent in a northern, free state, who failed to arrest an escaped slave, faced 6 months imprisonment and a $38,000 fine (in 2025 dollars)
Obviously, this law was unjust. While it was on the books, we lived in a “broken society”.
You’re a northern juror. The accused is a cop who, you come to believe has not only failed to arrest an escaped slave, but went on to assist them in fleeing to Canada.
Do you stand by your assertion that you, the juror are “supposed to enforce unjust laws”?
The other day, I took a walk around my block, and I swear, every dog in the neighborhood picked that day to shit near the sidewalk. I didn’t actually see any shit, but I smelled hidden shit in front of the Jenkin’s place, at the corner store. I stopped to tie my shoe in front of the Smith’s home, and it was overpowering. One of those damn dogs even broke into my breezeway and shat somewhere that I still haven’t found. It wasn’t until I took off my shoes and went in the house that I stopped smelling shit.
Too subtle?
These discussions end up at the legislative branch, because you’ve accepted the other major roles of the juror. They are a check on judicial power over the accused. They are a check on executive power over the accused. The constitution does not explicitly provide these judicial and executive powers over the accused to the juror, nor does it explicitly deny them.
The constitution does not explicitly provide legislative powers over the accused to the juror, nor does it explicitly deny them. I asked above for the “constitutional basis” for the distinction between the jury’s executive, judicial, and legislative functions: There is none. There is no constitutional justification for the distinctions you are making here.
The juror is allowed to determine that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is the product of a corrupt legislature, and refuse to enforce it against the accused.
The juror is allowed to determine that the legislature failed to consider the accused’s specific circumstances when it was creating a law, and refuse to enforce that unjust law against the accused. This is a power that the jury possesses.