AS A JUROR, you have the power to reject the application of law and the evidence and decide a case on your own conscience.
The jury's purpose has always been to assess whether a law has been brokenand whether the law itself has been justly applied – that is: should the case havebeen brought to court, when there is no victim, no loss and no danger to other people or society?
THE QUESTION TO BE ASKED IS:
DOES THIS PROSECUTION REFLECT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW?
Where a jury deliberately rejects the evidence or refuses to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about a social issue or because the result dictated by the law is against the juror’s sense of justice or morality – this is called jury nullification.
YOU THE JUROR HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACQUIT SOMEONE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPLICATION OF LAW IS WRONG IN A PARTICULAR CASE, OR EVEN THAT THE LAW ITSELF IS WRONG.
When to nullify:
Consider a prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act, where a person has cultivated of cannabis in private, for their own use only. There may be no suggestion of supply to others – no other people were involved, no profit intended.
We should ask: was this law introduced to punish people who grow or use a plant to their benefit, when they do no harm at all to other people and are no danger to society?
Of course not – it was meant to reduce damage from drugs misuse!
Then maybe such a prosecution is a mis-application of the law and good reason to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY, whatever the judges and barristers say. It is a juror’s right.
Trial by Jury - Lysander Spooner, backs up this article Alun!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
"FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws."
Thanks for that insight Alun, another reason why I will never join a jury, mind you I'm not british so they shoulkd not even try to get hold of me. :)
ReplyDeletequote:
ReplyDelete"The jury's purpose has always been to assess whether a law has been broken and whether the law itself has been justly applied"
The Judge will 'lay down the law' (in a very pedantic, patronising and overbearing way) as regards the first part of that statement...the second part is not the situation Alun, in the courtroom situation as regards the Judge. They put huge pressure on these individuals in the Jury. I didn't know about the Jury Nullification thing during my Crown Court protest defence for cannabis possession (only an 1/8th) a couple of years ago. It might well be worth articulatedly expressing this in the courtroom in the situation of the right case...but again because people are so used to kowtowing to the authorities, and also so unused to collectivly going against this authority, that its a major miricle to get this sort of result. I recall the Seeds of Hope ploughshares achived it. Difficult to get that sort of energy in a cannabis case - possible a genuine medical user situation...then certianly the auspicious energies might well win over mindless kowtowing to idiotic statute. The Judge wont like you saying that I would think, but if you defend yourself they can't stop you. The authorities might try and send you mad or somthing (they can be very very good at that!), but they can't in material terms stop you saying what you want in court. You might find it difficult to get a Barrister to say that sort of thing though. I hired a barrister for the firstpart of the trial, and then fired her so I could express my thoughts during the defence speech. The Barraster was annoyed by me doing that, she said she was 'emabarrassed' by it (a legal term context). All in all a very hectic but ultimately rewarding and empowering experience.
Jim
You are correct Jim, you probably won't find a barrister to say that and the Judge will tell the jury that you are wrong, but nevertheless the Jury DO have to power to take into consideration both the evidence of the so-called crime and the application of the law - if a Jury feels that the law has been misapplied then they can rule not guilty irrespective of what the judge says. The Jury do not have to give reasons for the verdict.
ReplyDeleteBut the courtroom is not the best place to announce this - the general public must be convinced that as a juror it is within their power irrespective of what the judge says, and to be convince din the case of possession of cannabis that it is a mis-application of the law as there (if there) is no victim.