Nullification is in effect a power of jury, not a right. This refers characteristically in the doctrine of the “Rule of Law which shows equality, predictability, and certainty. The jury is not a mini-democracy, or a mini-legislature, they are not to go back and down right as they see fit; that is anarchy and they are supposed to follow the law (Butler, 1996). This paper will articulate on jury nullification and formalism through the rule of law that emphasizes the importance of understanding law as a ‘neutral, predictable, and stable system of social order that guarantees the equal treatment of all citizens. Therefore, this paper argues that the jury nullification should continue to be recognized part of the Canadian justice system, which
…show more content…
They would somehow let dependence go free even if they are guilty back in the days. Along these lines, Paul Butler believes that black American jurors should acquit some guilty black defendant. This is wrong because he is making an appeal to racial sentiments. Also, if the goal is the subversion of the American criminal justice at least as it is now existing and if the only function of other criminal law would say “you’re wrong, you’re bad and even though you didn’t hurt anybody, you’re immoral”, then we need to subvert that system (Paul Butler, “Racially based Jury Nullification”, 1996). It is unjust because again its punishing you for being poor and being judged by colour. If the moral responsibility of black jurors expressed to emancipate some guilty black outlaws, then it shows a recognition of the reality of the way some jurors think. Bad public policy and laws are morally reprehensive to invite people as a matter of public policy to ignore the law and equip people (reword) (Paul Butler, “Racially based Jury Nullification”). This is merely because they are who they are. During the interview, a case scenario was discussed if a black man is arrested, who is better qualified to say what the punishment is, society as a whole or black society. Butler answer to this was black society because he believes that the white society has proven time in a time out that …show more content…
Liberal critique and radical critique are discussed in race. Through a liberal critique, there is a differential enforcement; fails to explain why incidents of crimes are higher. On the other hand, radical critique is a system filled with racism and self-fulfilling assumptions. There is no question of intent of law but of effect or outcome (Professor Tasson, Juries, week
They would somehow let dependence go free even if they are guilty back in the days. Along these lines, Paul Butler believes that black American jurors should acquit some guilty black defendant. This is wrong because he is making an appeal to racial sentiments. Also, if the goal is the subversion of the American criminal justice at least as it is now existing and if the only function of other criminal law would say “you’re wrong, you’re bad and even though you didn’t hurt anybody, you’re immoral”, then we need to subvert that system (Paul Butler, “Racially based Jury Nullification”, 1996). It is unjust because again its punishing you for being poor and being judged by colour. If the moral responsibility of black jurors expressed to emancipate some guilty black outlaws, then it shows a recognition of the reality of the way some jurors think. Bad public policy and laws are morally reprehensive to invite people as a matter of public policy to ignore the law and equip people (reword) (Paul Butler, “Racially based Jury Nullification”). This is merely because they are who they are. During the interview, a case scenario was discussed if a black man is arrested, who is better qualified to say what the punishment is, society as a whole or black society. Butler answer to this was black society because he believes that the white society has proven time in a time out that …show more content…
Liberal critique and radical critique are discussed in race. Through a liberal critique, there is a differential enforcement; fails to explain why incidents of crimes are higher. On the other hand, radical critique is a system filled with racism and self-fulfilling assumptions. There is no question of intent of law but of effect or outcome (Professor Tasson, Juries, week