We got on this topic in the Georgia Death Penalty thread. Here's some info on Jury Nullification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu..._United_States

It's not always good, though:
And something to piss you off:

Jury Nullification Activist Faces Six Months in Jail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/ny...jury.html?_r=1

So Jury Nullification: dangerous practice that undermines our legal system, or time-honored common-law right of juries useful in fighting government tyranny?

I'd like to hear the opinions of our resident Law Talking Guys. Is jury nullification a Bad Court Thingy?

Yes, it is a bad thing. Juries don't decide the law. They decide disputed facts.

F that. If the law is unjust, the jury should nullify. If we believe in a free society, evidence that you broke an unjust law shouldn't land you in jail.

I could literally play devils advocate and argue either side of this. Frankly i dont know if it should happen, but i dont think its moving in the right direction to try and remove it from the system.

To throw the example of the forum's favorite topic in here, decriminalising weed will almost certainly come via JN in America rather than through the ballot box.

Much as I am blown away by the logical power and rhetorical force of the argument "F that", Juries decide contract law and other kinds of cases too. Predictability in the law is extremely important.

You already have effective nullification in contract law (unconscionability, etc). I'm with Phill here, it can be used for purposes ranging from very good to very bad.

so, ElliotR, back in the 1850s if you felt slavery was unjust, you'd still be against nullification because "it's the law?"

I'm a big proponent of jury nullification in criminal matters. You make a good point about other types of law. I know jury nullification is pretty rampant in probate procedures and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I was just reflecting on this yesterday, as my wife was being questioned for possible placement on a jury. I think as an ideal that Elliot is right. In practice, I'm skeptical that people have enough power to change laws through the conventional channels that we should get rid of this practice altogether. Tough question.

The thing is jury nullification only works if you have a large mass of people willing to disagree with the law on the books. I can understand the principle of trying to have consistent decision making but all JN does is create hung juries unless there is a lot of people willing to work outside of the process.

In practice it seems to me to be an example of democratic changing of law no different to doing so via a ballot box except a jury will be more representative of the people than the ballot box will.

Yes, of course. There are ways to change unjust laws. Jury nullification is a very poor one and has a lot of downsides imo.

So, leavesofliberty, back in the early to mid 20th century, when white lynch mobs were murdering black people, you'd be in favor of allowing an all-white jury to listen and act on arguments that black people didn't deserve the same legal protection against murder as white people?

It's not exactly time-honored. Where I practice - NY and federal courts - lawyers cannot get away with explicit appeals to jury nullification.

If a law is so unjust that it would result in it being nullified by juries, I'm not sure why it would be difficult get a congress to act upon these wide spread feeling of injustice just as easy with out screwing with the legal system.

^ Now that's an interesting thought that I never even thought of with this issue.

On the other hand it is a lot easier to vote for something unjust in the abstract, especially if you're a legislator and some recent tragedy has brought the electorate into a frenzy of unreasonableness. It is much easier to recognize and be appalled by the injustice when it is a real man sitting in front of you in the courtroom who's future is in your hands.

Disagree. I think the jury should have to power to veto a law that is unjust.

As someone pointed out, that does nothing but hang a jury. Only for him to face the same fate again with a new jury. Changes nothing if the majority is represented in the jury of peers. I'll never be convinced that our jury system should have to be politicized to over turn a law.

Do you think Congress does (and should) always reflect what is widespread popular? Especially note its designed to be slow to act and can be crippled as a process by a very small number of people.

I think jury nullification could make sense from a public choice perspective. Jurors can be horribly biased, but so can voters. However, jurors may think more thoroughly about a law, given that their vote is much more likely to be decisive.

This is a good point; however, it seems to me that most of the widespread nullification from the Wiki article was later adopted by society (The article could be biased, though) and that nullification is a process by which strongly held ideals are forced onto the legal system before they are mainstream enough to change the laws. I believe that has value and from a personal standpoint, I think one is compelled to behave morally on a jury even if that behavior is against the wishes of the court.

What is the actual way this goes down usually? Jurors find not guilty when they don't like the law or they actually say "nullified, bitches"

Either way, I don't see how you "outlaw" jury nullification. Who is going to wreck a life over doing something they don't think is wrong (yeah yeah, almost everyone, I know). But seriously how do you prevent it, just tell jurors they are in trouble if they find not guilty for the wrong reasons?

Jurors get to see the application of the law in the real world applied to a real defendant. In the second favorite topic around here, recording cops in public, if you're on one of the first juries where a case like that is brought, do you a) wait for the law to change and a pardon to be granted, b) have faith that the conviction will be overturned on appeal, or c) just say "this is ****ing ridiculous" and refuse to convict?

It's actually frightening that anybody who thinks the law/interpretation of old law is completely ridiculous would choose to lock somebody up for as long as it takes other people to sort it out, if they ever do. More frequent nullification would push crimes and punishments to reflect what a large majority agree are crimes and acceptable punishments for those crimes, which while not a strict positive, definitely seems like a net positive today.

If they have such a problem with this practice or want 'the rule of law' to stand, then perhaps they should try writing just laws, you know, the legislators duty. I fully support the right of a jury of peers to tell the law to 'f that.' I also fully support defense and prosecution attorneys to screen these people from the process. If everyone thinks the law is unjust then I guess the prosecution is going very far.

people who aren't leavesofliberty and 13ball can go ahead and answer this as well

Of course having jury nullification leaves the door open to bad results and injustice in some cases. Just like prohibiting jury nullification and having the jury merely be the decider of facts can lead to bad results and injustice, like enforcing the fugitive slave act or drug prohibition laws.