Jury Nullification

In a recent conversation with coworkers about the law, I mentioned that, even if a defendant is guilty of a crime, the jurors need not convict if they think the law in unjust in that case.  My two coworkers, both American, completely disagreed.  It may work that way in Canada, but not here.  One had been on a jury and knew for a fact that the jury must judge based on the law; the trial judge informed him of this. 

This stance makes little sense since the purpose of the jury in America is to be judged by a panel of your peers.  Jurors have only one job, and that is to determine if someone should be punished for their crime.  To do this, the juror must:

1. Determine if the person has committed the crime
2. And if so, determine if the person should be punished for his actions.

If the prosecutor cannot convince twelve people that the defendant is guilty, then the case is not strong enough to send the defendant to prison.  If the twelve people are not convinced that the application of the law is just, the case is not strong enough to send the defendant to prison.  This is how laws are changed.  Judges only have the power to enforce the law, while the people have the power to change them.

Being diligent and preferring to win, I looked it up.

The practice is called jury nullification because jurors have the right to nullify a law that they see as unjust.  It is written in the constitution and John Adams, the second American president, had this to say:

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

It is of little surprise that judges are against jury nullification and prevent the defence from informing the jury of their power.  People in power like to stay in power.  I can see how someone might be annoyed that after years of dedication to the law a layman still has more power to decide a case.

What is surprising is that jury nullification is less acceptable in Canada.  The judge has the power to override a jury ruling if nullification was employed and the case can be appealed on grounds of nullification.

It is important for people to understand this right, since in America people have about a 33% chance of appearing on a jury in their lifetime.  More importantly, it may go some way to teaching people the difference between what is right and what is legal.  I find it alarming the number of times people use the law as a substitute for thought.  "What was wrong with his actions?"  "He broke the law!"  That's not an argument.  That's a cop-out.