Jury Nullification Essay

The topic of jury nullification has long incited debate, with strong opinions on both sides. Paul Butler a former Special Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, claims jury nullification is necessary in order to fight laws that are racially unjust and argues that African-American jurors should exercise their right of nullification and it is their moral responsibility to emancipate some guilty black outlaws (Butler, 1995, p. 679). Jury nullification, occurs when jurors deliberately vote to acquit a defendant, regardless of evidence presented to establish the defendant’s guilt (Spohn, 2009, p. 68). It is a mechanism employed by prosecutors to encourage jurors to disregard the law and evidence and acquit defendants (Horowitz, …show more content…
A jury has the right to nullify, however, advising jurors of their right to nullify is not required. Racially based jury nullification, according to Butler (1995) can make the black community better off, when nonviolent offenders remain in their communities (Butler, 1995, p. 679) and the decision as to what offenses should be punished is “better made by African-Americans themselves” (Butler, p. 679). While legal in the United States and many other countries, jury nullification can encourage and create uncertainty in our criminal system and according to Kerr (2015) “is a recipe for arbitrariness instead of informed judgement”. The responsibility of jurors is not to decide what laws are just or unjust, it is to apply the law as described by the judge to the facts of the case and to find a defendant guilty or not guilty based on the information presented during the case. Jury nullification weakens the “rule of law” by encouraging jurors to disregard the law and more importantly can prevent justice from being served and why I disagree with Butler’s call for racially based jury nullification. Racially based jury nullification, does not make a distinction between good laws or bad laws, but