A Professor of Law at George Mason University wrote an article about the jury nullification in the Washington Post. In it he focuses of various aspects that make this process so interesting and contradicting. The author give his personal view on jury nullification and his initial attitude toward it. Jury nullification can be seen as a two edged sword, because it is not applied on constant and consistent basis. The author, Ilya Somin agrees that it can curb unjust laws, however it can backfire. One example he provides is the Jim Crow era in South, where all white juries were highly inclined not to prosecute white defendants who had committed racially guided crimes against blacks (Somin, 2015, para. 1). On its face, one can find
…show more content…
1). However, as the time went on Professor Somin started to look at the other side of this process and relied his conclusions on a legal scholar named Glen Reynolds. Reynolds compared nullification to prosecutorial discretion to pursue charges against an individual or not. The main aspect he points out is that when citizens with no legal experience or training let guilty people go free, they are looked upon with suspicion. However, when the prosecution does the exact same, then it is seen as mere execution of judicial powers. But there is no suggestion why one is better than the other, besides the fact that prosecutors are more susectible to corruption as opposed to everyday people who come together in the court for a single case (Somin, 2015, para. 2, ad 3). The author implies that the Founders placed such power in peoples hands to keep the government in check and make sure it does not exercise more power than it actually has. Consequently, the criminal and civil laws that are exercised in modern days might confuse jury members themselves. That is, there are crimes which should not be illegal at all or carry much lesser penalties, hence, jury nullification is more possible in these instances, rather than in broadly accepted
1). However, as the time went on Professor Somin started to look at the other side of this process and relied his conclusions on a legal scholar named Glen Reynolds. Reynolds compared nullification to prosecutorial discretion to pursue charges against an individual or not. The main aspect he points out is that when citizens with no legal experience or training let guilty people go free, they are looked upon with suspicion. However, when the prosecution does the exact same, then it is seen as mere execution of judicial powers. But there is no suggestion why one is better than the other, besides the fact that prosecutors are more susectible to corruption as opposed to everyday people who come together in the court for a single case (Somin, 2015, para. 2, ad 3). The author implies that the Founders placed such power in peoples hands to keep the government in check and make sure it does not exercise more power than it actually has. Consequently, the criminal and civil laws that are exercised in modern days might confuse jury members themselves. That is, there are crimes which should not be illegal at all or carry much lesser penalties, hence, jury nullification is more possible in these instances, rather than in broadly accepted