Jury nullification occurs in the event of an unjust law been used to prosecute a criminal. Is it right for a criminal to be vindicated simply because the law is unjust? Any one facing the law has an inherent right to a fair hearing. Therefore, any law that is applied in the trial of an individual does not only need to be valid, but also just. In the absence of just laws, criminality is abetted.
The situation leads to the question whether the offended person or entity receives the right or a fair hearing? The offended does not get a fair hearing due to the fact that the accused person goes free after been proved guilty. However, the offended would expect the law to be fair to all. In such a situation then, the offended should accept the verdict of the jury as fair. This is because the offended would also expect the same to happen should he or she be the convicted.
Do the jurors have an alternative in the face of an unjust law? The main work of the jurors is to determine the case based on the existing laws. Their jurisdiction does not go beyond the established laws. Therefore, in the face of an unjust law, the juror cannot attempt to make a law or twist the laws to fit a certain situation so as to pass a judgment. This mandate belongs to the parliament. Thus, it is right for the jurors to nullify.
Is jury nullification effective? Based on the processes of making laws and their implementation thereof, jury nullification puts into question the stability of the existing laws (Doug Linder, 2001. In such a situation, the nullification acts as an indicator of the ineffectiveness of the laws. Therefore, jury nullification is ineffective way of applying laws.
Work cited
Doug Linder (2001). Jury Nullification. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html on 2014-04-18
