Race-Based Jury Nullification Essay Example for Free

Race-Based Jury Nullification EssayInternet research clearly showed a long fib for panel nullification in the US. An explanation of control board nullification, and in particular melt down ground gore nullification, is that it is a method whereby juries supplant unfair honors by declaring dishonored defendants not guilty. Race based nullification is where a control board acquits and individual based on their travel. This is unremarkably found in homogenous juries where at that place is little panel diversity. Past cases such as runaway slave laws and current cases such as police shootings show that race-based nullification is still an issue in modern courtrooms. The evidence being that control panel nullification is an important power necessary for the checks and balances of the judicial systemJury nullification is a counterbalance enjoyed, and not silent, by all jurors in the US. This right gives jurors the ability to interpret laws for themselves and return not-guilty verdicts for guilty defendants allowing them to nullify laws. (Emal, 1995) The most common admonishment by judges is that jurors must decide the case based on f constitutes, and that they ar not in fact interpreting the fairness of laws. The fear is that if jurors knew or understood this power, it could undermine the authority of the US judicial system. Allowing juries to interpret laws is in fact a right effrontery as a foil against a too powerful central government.Historically there is a tremendous precedent for jury nullification much of it involving race. In the North pre-civil war era juries commonly refused to convict runaway slaves because they felt that the law was unfair. This was an example of jury nullification, where the jury was aware that the defendant was guilty, but refused to return a guilty verdict, in effect nullifying the law. (Emal, 1995) More recently in the 1930s some(prenominal) courts refused conviction for minor alcohol infractions because t hey felt the law was unfair. Another example of this trend were the civil rights trials of neat supremacists in the south in the 50s and 60s in these cases all white juries would refuse to convict white defendants of the take out of blackpeople or civil rights workers. (Emal, 1995)These cases clearly show that there befuddle been legion(predicate) examples of jury nullification in the past in our country. Since a return of a not guilty verdict allows the jury to effectively end prosecution with no appeal allowed by the state it means that juries very have final say well-nigh when and if a law is utilized. This allows juries the power to actually use their moral sense when voting to convict or release a defendant. One possible outcome of jury nullification is the possibility of a major increase in hung juries.Race has figured in many instances of jury nullification so there is a clear precedent for race based jury nullification. (Emal, 1995) belatedly all white juries have refu sed to convict white police officers in wrongful shooting trials where the dupe was black. Also black juries have refused to convict clearly guilty defendants of crimes on the grounds that there are too many black people in prison already. (Butler, 1995) Another possible reason for jury nullification is to punish prosecutors and police for tactics, which the jurors find unpalatable.Many people recently felt that the O.J. Simpson trial was race based jury nullification similarly the Rodney King trial would be an example. In both of these cases many people felt that the individual was guilty but that they were released because of their race. Some states have proposed that juries should have racial quotas in order to avoid possible race based nullification. In this system jurors who should be excused could be kept even if they were unsatisfactory if they fit some particular racial need. These attempts to scorn jury nullification point to the seriousness with which this power is viewed .Some black lawmakers have said that since a jury is vocalization of a community then jurors should have the right to decide which people they will allow to consist among them. (Butler, 1995) This basically means that jurors exercise their power based on conscience and not based on the facts of the case. This means that black juries would acquit non-violent black defendants even in cases where they were clearly guilty to nullify the set up of a predominantly white judicial system. The belief here is that the laws areinherently unfair because they were created by and for white people. (Butler, 1995)Clearly there is a place for jury nullification in the US. There has been a long history of unfair laws and practices in the country and allowing the jury the power to overturn or nullify them is a good way to keep the government in check. (Jones, 2004) The real question is more about race-based nullification. Should race be a factor when juries find nullification as an option? The ans wer to this is entangled if a jury authentically feels that a defendant was targeted unfairly based on race shouldnt they have some power to affect the trial. (Butler, 1995) Also without a complete revamping of the legal system ( scarey thought) how would one go about fixing the problem? Can nullification be eliminated with our current system?The idea is to really re-examine the selection process. With nullification as a real possibility then prosecutors can act to eliminate it by paying more attention to homogeneity during the selection process. Any prosecutor who allows a homogenous jury runs a real risk of losing the case based on nullification. Also race based jury nullification has been a useful tool in the past. (Jones, 2004) If not for northern juries how many runaway slaves would have been returned to torture and beatings in the south. In this case we had a manifestly unfair law which juries exercised a legitimate nullification against.Overall race based jury nullification is a scary prospect when taken to the extreme but it is a prospect that bears some consideration. Since it has been used righteously in the past it is a hard decision to contemplate getting rid of it. If there was no jury nullification of any kind then the country would have missed out on juries taking a stand against poorly thought out laws. The answer is that jury nullification has played a dual roll in our history. At times it is a useful tool as in the cases involving slavery or differential prosecution, at times allowing racists to go free. So having weighed the merits of the situation it is best go away as is currently. There is a real risk for overuse if everyone were aware of thepower but in its absence the government would exercise too much power unbalanced by the power of the people.The conclusion would have to be that there is too much risk in eliminating jury nullification as a whole. Race based nullification is probably not necessary and would be nice to eliminate bu t there is no effective way to combat this. One possibility mentioned earlier is for prosecutors to consider nullification during the selection process to help combat this problem.ReferencesButler, Paul. (1998). Racially Based Jury Nullification inglorious Power in the CriminalJustice System. Yale Law Review, 105, 677-725.Emal, Russ. (1995). Jury Nullification Why You Should Know What It Is. Retrieved on11/21/04 from http//www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23- /07JuryNullification.htmlJones Iloilo Marguerit. (2004). American Juror. Retrieved on 11/21/04 fromhttp//www.fffija.org