Pros And Cons Of Jury Nullification

IV. For Nullification Based on the tacit allowance of jury nullification that is present today, and the stated allowance of it in death penalty cases, jury nullification should be brought out of the darkness and instated as a right in trials. The benefits of jury nullification are clear, and include the fact that juries can respond to unanticipated circumstances in the moment that laws cannot and that they can look at exigent circumstances and choose to grant a defendant freedom when those circumstances are clear. There are three main ways that nullification should be made known and legal. The first is through statues, the second through jury instructions and the third through the allowance of nullification arguments by defense council. In 2012 New Hampshire passed a statute that allowed the “defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy” (Fully). The legislature was careful in the text of the bill about its intent “to perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury, as ordained under common law and recognized in the American jurisprudence” (Fully). However the statute stood for less than two years before the New Hampshire Supreme Court nullified it. The court’s opinion declared that it was not a jury nullification statute and that a defendant has no right to make the argument to the jury that it can nullify (Fully). This decision, though it set jury nullification back, signaled a shift in the United States to bring nullification out of the twilight and into the forefront. Another way to make nullification known is through jury instructions. Current jury instructions instruct the jury to decide the case based on the evidence they have heard during the trial and whether the law the judge instructs them on has indeed been broken (Vermont). These common instructions tell juries that they are to decide guilt or innocence based on what they witness during the trial, but they do not tell them that they too have the opportunity, and the responsibility to interpret the laws In fact Vermont’s Civil Jury Instruction states “neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me,” (Vermont). Here the instructions are explicitly warning the jury not to interpret the law in any way, they are simply to decide whether or not the law has been broken. To make nullification known, judges should instruct juries on their ability to decide if the law should apply in the case they are deciding on. For example if a battered wife kills her husband after years of abuse, should …show more content…
The anarchy argument is refutable in that our nation, and its laws, was created as a “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln phrased it in his Gettysburg Address. If we are to take Lincoln’s words to heart, then our laws, which have been created by citizens, should also be interpreted by citizens in the jury when determining the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen. Secondly, though there is fear of runaway juries, if nullification was brought out of the shadows this would not need to be a concern. If nullification was made legal and there were statutes passed about it, there would be limits placed on this power preventing juries from convicting or acquitting based on their