Essay On Jury Nullification

The founding fathers of the United States feared the development of an oppressive government. To counter this, the founding fathers developed a system of checks and balances that directly includes the people. The right to a jury trial has a central role in the American justice system that prevents unlawful acts from being continued. Thus, juries have a political significance outside the judicial branch. The jury system acts as a check on government power preventing government officials from making laws that are morally wrong. With the inclusion of everyday citizens in a trial, it fosters political and civil engagement among citizens. Juries uphold their political power with the use of jury nullification. “the right of juries to nullify or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that leave no reasonable doubt that the law was violated” (Neubauer 374). This occurs when the law itself is immoral and does not properly apply to the defendant, thus leading to jury nullification. This is a necessary safeguard for individuals against some laws of government and a perfect instrument of democracy. Judges do not have to inform the jury of their power to jury nullification, thus, the jury rarely uses this power This power is mainly feared because of its ability to undermine the system. The government would feel as if it has no direct control of what it can make laws for. Jury nullification protects citizens from oppressive laws. Using juries in the judicial branch provides an extra check on the executive branch. Since jury nullification allows the law to be nullified during a case, this case then establishes a precedent. This precedent then effectively removes the power of that law that has been nullified. The constitution mentions right to a trial by jury on three separate occasions. Article III, section 2 states “the trial of all crimes, except cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State …show more content…
Dougherty. In this case, a group of individual known as the D.C. Nine broke into the Dow Chemical Company office and vandalized its property. Afterwards, the D.C. Nine made a joint appeal from the convictions made from them vandalizing the chemical company (United States v. Dougherty 3). The appellants argued that the judge did not notify the jury of their right to nullify the law and acquit the appellants of their charges (United States v. Dougherty). The appellants also argued that the judge did not allow the defense counsel to speak about jury nullification to the jury as well. Judge Leventhal encouraged individuals to make their own decisions about which laws to obey. In doing so this might cause a disarray in the American government and put everything off balance (United States v. Dougherty 25). He veered towards having a more stable and strong system to prevent the danger of jury nullification if the judges would notify every juror of this power. However, Judge Bazelon argues with his dissenting opinion that the jury should have the right to know about this specific power. “The doctrine permits the jury to bring to bear on the criminal process a sense of fairness and particularized justice” (United States v. Dougherty 44). Jury nullification provides the power necessary to prevent manic judges and prosecutors from abusing their power. Judge Bazelon agrees the jury should be told of their