I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?

If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?

I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    That’s the argument.

    You might feel thats how things ought to be but you’re unable to support your statement with anything other than the vibe.

    We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.

    If you feel that someone who kills a CEO you don’t like should be exempt from a charge of murder then you should discuss that with your local representative.