Yes, for very good reasons.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
The founders talked about nullification as a risk, not some kind of brilliant masterful concept that would make a better justice system. Under a functional justice system, you should be able to largely predict the outcomes of cases, because a jury should be impartial and only consider the evidence.
Nullification means you are celebrating juror bias and personal prejudice. It means you think facts are secondary to feelings.
Now it means the justice system is unpredictable and the rule of law breaks down, because the rule of law is entirely up to whether or not twelve unelected people decide it is.
Fucking OJ's conviction was nullified. They literally nullified it because "boo hoo hoo that cop is kind of a racist" and "omg if we convict, the blacks will chimp out". Seriously.
Also guess what: a District Attorney refusing to prosecute leftist rioters is also a form of nullification.
Yes, for very good reasons.
I mean, it makes sense. The idea that this is some kind of abhorrent betrayal of civic rights is a retarded Reddit-grade thought.
The job of a jury is to simply determine whether or not someone broke the law. They make a yes or no decision.
Their job isn't to determine if a sentence is 'just' or not. When you start talking about nullification it means you are outright expressing your intent to betray your juror instructions and overthrow the trial.
Nullification is directly detrimental to the functioning of a justice system. Would you be happy if you were savagely beaten by a black man and your wife raped in front of you, and the all-black jury nullified all the counts against him simply because he was black? Because all-white juries used to do that shit in the Jim Crow south.
Lastly, it's probably unlikely that a 'nullifier' juror would convince the entire rest of the jury to go along with them. So all that is going to happen is a hung jury and the case gets tried with a new jury. All you're doing is wasting time and money.
Talking about jury nullification in a courtroom is like talking about murdering people in a gun store. You're going to get thrown out for obvious fucking reasons, even if you don't "actually" intend to nullify or shoot someone.
The founders talked about nullification as a risk, not some kind of brilliant masterful concept that would make a better justice system.