Nicole Barak
PHI 115 003
John Garcia
August 26th, 2017
A recent episode of Radiolab, titled “Null And Void,” discussed the issue on jury nullification. As the podcast progresses, it explained that jury nullification is when a defendant is in clear guilt of breaking the law, but the jury feels the defendant is not guilty and the law is unjust. Throughout the episode, a variety of emotions were displayed on whether jury nullification is beneficial or dangerous to our court system. Some may defend it and state people have to be the “conscious of the community” and do what is right, while others may argue it does not matter the situation, if evidence shows the defendant is guilty then there is no reason to ignore the law. With jurors having the …show more content…
As the podcast moves forward to different cases, jury nullification displays how it can do more harm than good. Jurors have power and are able to waive certain areas that have to do with criminal charges. Take for example, the second part of the episode that talked about the William Penn case. Back in the 1800’s, it was illegal to be a Quaker. Penn knew that, but continued to practice this religion. He was arrested on the steps of Gracechurch for gathering a large crowd and creating a disturbance of the peace. Penn was arrested in front of the public and taken in to have a trial. As the trial went on, the jurors explained they couldn’t agree together and felt it wasn’t right to lock him up even though what Penn did was against the law. From the juror’s statements, you can see that Penn was found guilty, but they felt it was unjust to convict him. Penn was acquitted and the judge accepted the verdict. The jurors clearly disregarded the law, and yet the court system allowed it to happen. Because of the Penn case, this is what started the beginning of jury nullification as a rightful …show more content…
In the 1990’s, Rodney King was surrounded by police who repeatedly beat him with batons. An unarmed black man who suffered from severe police brutality received no justice because all of the officers were acquitted by a majority of white jurors. For five days, riots formed in California because of the outrage that happened to Rodney King. This is one of the examples as people felt were a form of racism. Three years later, we see a different case about racism. The OJ Simpson trial made headlines on newspapers and sparked an outrage all across America. OJ Simpson was going to be convicted for the murder of his wife, Nicole. The trial took place in a town where the majority of the jurors were African American. OJ Simpson was acquitted. Many believed the jurors found Simpson not guilty because they did not want to see another black man go to jail. With jurors who put their racial beliefs and issues into criminal trials, they may feel it is a chance to protest and to fight the injustice for communities of
PHI 115 003
John Garcia
August 26th, 2017
A recent episode of Radiolab, titled “Null And Void,” discussed the issue on jury nullification. As the podcast progresses, it explained that jury nullification is when a defendant is in clear guilt of breaking the law, but the jury feels the defendant is not guilty and the law is unjust. Throughout the episode, a variety of emotions were displayed on whether jury nullification is beneficial or dangerous to our court system. Some may defend it and state people have to be the “conscious of the community” and do what is right, while others may argue it does not matter the situation, if evidence shows the defendant is guilty then there is no reason to ignore the law. With jurors having the …show more content…
As the podcast moves forward to different cases, jury nullification displays how it can do more harm than good. Jurors have power and are able to waive certain areas that have to do with criminal charges. Take for example, the second part of the episode that talked about the William Penn case. Back in the 1800’s, it was illegal to be a Quaker. Penn knew that, but continued to practice this religion. He was arrested on the steps of Gracechurch for gathering a large crowd and creating a disturbance of the peace. Penn was arrested in front of the public and taken in to have a trial. As the trial went on, the jurors explained they couldn’t agree together and felt it wasn’t right to lock him up even though what Penn did was against the law. From the juror’s statements, you can see that Penn was found guilty, but they felt it was unjust to convict him. Penn was acquitted and the judge accepted the verdict. The jurors clearly disregarded the law, and yet the court system allowed it to happen. Because of the Penn case, this is what started the beginning of jury nullification as a rightful …show more content…
In the 1990’s, Rodney King was surrounded by police who repeatedly beat him with batons. An unarmed black man who suffered from severe police brutality received no justice because all of the officers were acquitted by a majority of white jurors. For five days, riots formed in California because of the outrage that happened to Rodney King. This is one of the examples as people felt were a form of racism. Three years later, we see a different case about racism. The OJ Simpson trial made headlines on newspapers and sparked an outrage all across America. OJ Simpson was going to be convicted for the murder of his wife, Nicole. The trial took place in a town where the majority of the jurors were African American. OJ Simpson was acquitted. Many believed the jurors found Simpson not guilty because they did not want to see another black man go to jail. With jurors who put their racial beliefs and issues into criminal trials, they may feel it is a chance to protest and to fight the injustice for communities of