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” …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