There are several reasons for jury nullification, which can be divided into conventional and non-conventional explanations. Under conventional nullification, the jury nullifies a verdict by misapplying or disregarding the law (Fougère, 2018). The argument for the practice is that strict application of the law may lead to societal injustice. The jury also argues that the act could be illegal, but circumstances that pushed the defendant are not. Further, the defendant could have suffered enough before committing the crime, making their conviction an injustice. The other conventional reason is the jury’s act of mercy on the defendant. However, the defense should not be confused with sympathy for the defendant. Instead, it is an act of understanding according to what motivated the crime. The last conventional reason is where the judge revolts against a particular part of the law. In this case, jury nullification is practiced if the jury feels the law is unconstitutional.
An unconventional reason is where a jury decides to apply the law to justify nullification biasedly. In this case, the juries do not make a verdict according to normative and legal prescription instead of using resultant bias. Compared with the conventional reasons for jury nullification, unconventional reasons divert the law for personal gains and interests. In some instances, the jury does not use the constitutional prescription under which a defendant is charged (Kilcoyne, 2018). The jury avoids conventional and preceding views and uses any selection and information as a locus for the verdict, which amounts to bias. Such juries rely on the biased use of information to inform their decisions, which is a willful refusal to apply the law.
Examples of Jury Nullification
The first example is the case of the Vietnam War protestor Benjamin Spock. The jury applied the law as it is but was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. A jury may nullify a ruling by misapplication or disregard of the law (Fougère, 2018). In this case, juries decide to misapply or disregard the law when they feel its strict application can violate the moral consciousness or lead to a more impactful injustice to a community. The injustices may come as a result of considering that when the defendant committed the illegal act or crime, their actions were justified to a particular extent (Chakravarti, 2017). The jury may argue that any normal person would act the same way when faced with a similar incident to the defendant. The injustice may also be due to the defendant acting under compulsion and not a free agent.
Further, juries may also conventionally null a ruling when it is established that the defendant’s actions were prompted by admiral intentions or motives (Chakravarti, 2017). The argument for nullification is that the law’s strict application could be disproportionate to the crime committed. Also, the defendant could have suffered from the conditions that prompted them to act.
In the Camden 28 case, they were acquitted because of the circumstances that led to their crime; the jury exercised the power of mercy. Even though those opposing the act argue that the provision repeals the constitutional acts and sets bad presents, it seems to fit well with the changing circumstances and application of current laws (Fougère, 2018). According to the principle of jury nullification, the law should be applied mercifully (Chakravarti, 2017). For example, during times of national discontent, the jury’s power to nullify becomes part of the discussion because some people are convicted because of political motives. Therefore, people tend to plead with the juries to understand and practice their nullification power.
In the jury nullification of John Peter Zenger’s case, the jury argued that the law prohibited people from criticizing public leaders was illegal. The jury then rejected the particular part of the law, which led to the acquittal of the defendant. In this case, the jury is not concerned with the defendants’ fate but is acquitted because of the law’s dismissal under which they were convicted. For example, when the jury feels the act committed by the defendant should not be illegal (Fougère, 2018). For instance, some juries in the prohibition era declined to convict defendants for selling alcohol. Similarly, some juries felt that it was legal to practice private sexual behavior among adults or the use of some soft illegal drugs.
Even though there are compelling reasons for jury nullification, critics of the act argue that some juries are not conscientious. Therefore, they may exercise their nullification power with favoritism (Kilcoyne, 2018). For example, juries of the southern states refused to convict white defendants even if there were no reasons for jury nullification. The critics also cited jury vilification as a reason for opposing jury nullification. In the southern states of America, where racial discrimination was prominent, juries were vilified, and they gave judgments that reflected prejudice or favored the white community. Therefore, the opponents of the practice believed that it was legally untenable. The act could be used for vengeance and mercy.
