There are many controversial issues in the United States criminal justice system. In recent years, the contentious issue of ethnic discrimination has been in the forefront of several trials. There are some individuals who believe that jury nullification should be used by minorities on juries to acquit defendants of color. Jury nullification is defined as a process where a jury acquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury believe the defendant is guilty of the charges. The concept is that the system is biased toward the ethnic majority and nullification can be used to balance the system for minorities. However, the ethics of this practice are in question. This issue and other ethnic issues in the court system will be examined in
…show more content…
Juries have used nullification to ignore laws that they found unjust and unfair, including during prohibition when juries would use the power of nullification to give their opinion of laws they disagreed with. Some jurors feel that it is their right to keep the government from forcing laws on them that they don’t agree with. Although, juries have the power to ignore the law, most jurors are not aware of that power. Unless a juror spoke out about their intention to nullify, there is not much chance of the court finding out. Also, jurors cannot be punished for their vote nor can the defendant that is found not guilty be retried for the same crime. As previously stated there are some individuals who feel that nullification should be used to balance out the inequality between the minorities and non-minorities in the criminal justice system. They feel that if they were to use their power of nullification to vote against conviction of minorities they would be correcting the inequality that exists in the system. Still others are of the opinion that it is unethical to vote against a guilty verdict when the defendant is proven guilty, and that the disparity should be handled by making changes to the system. Another criticism of jury nullification is that it violates the oath that is given to jurors, and violates the rule of law. One of the cases of nullification that was publically reported occurred in September 2012 in New Hampshire. In a small community there a 59 y/o, Rastafarian, married, father of four grown children, was charged with cultivating marijuana illegally in his backyard (Newman, 2012). The charge carried a possible sentence of seven years in prison (Newman, 2012). A local activist took up his cause and convinced the jury to use their power of nullification to have him found not guilty (Newman, 2012). When interviewed the activist reported that she felt her
Juries have used nullification to ignore laws that they found unjust and unfair, including during prohibition when juries would use the power of nullification to give their opinion of laws they disagreed with. Some jurors feel that it is their right to keep the government from forcing laws on them that they don’t agree with. Although, juries have the power to ignore the law, most jurors are not aware of that power. Unless a juror spoke out about their intention to nullify, there is not much chance of the court finding out. Also, jurors cannot be punished for their vote nor can the defendant that is found not guilty be retried for the same crime. As previously stated there are some individuals who feel that nullification should be used to balance out the inequality between the minorities and non-minorities in the criminal justice system. They feel that if they were to use their power of nullification to vote against conviction of minorities they would be correcting the inequality that exists in the system. Still others are of the opinion that it is unethical to vote against a guilty verdict when the defendant is proven guilty, and that the disparity should be handled by making changes to the system. Another criticism of jury nullification is that it violates the oath that is given to jurors, and violates the rule of law. One of the cases of nullification that was publically reported occurred in September 2012 in New Hampshire. In a small community there a 59 y/o, Rastafarian, married, father of four grown children, was charged with cultivating marijuana illegally in his backyard (Newman, 2012). The charge carried a possible sentence of seven years in prison (Newman, 2012). A local activist took up his cause and convinced the jury to use their power of nullification to have him found not guilty (Newman, 2012). When interviewed the activist reported that she felt her