Jury Nullification And The Canadian Justice System

The original place the Hossack case was supposed to take place was in Warren County. The case was rumored to be relocated to Des Moines. Or that it be relocated to Polk county court.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

In the 2013 case, R v Gittany, the accused, Simon Gittany, requested for a judge-only trial. This was due to the complexity of his murder case and the media coverage which Gittany believed would have influenced the jury’s perspectives and outcome. The complexities and intricacies of a trial that took barristers and solicitors years of expertise to understand and interpret cannot be expected to be completely understood from a group of twelve members from the public. This can be seen in a recent 2013 report from the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Jurors Need More Direction’ where the NSW Law Reform Commission (LRC) found that the directions given to juries from judges ‘are not working, overly complex and need to be clearer’. However, their imperfections aren’t enough to have them off the trial process as juries allow the public to be involved in the judicial system. Public participation in the criminal trial process creates more confidence in the legal system. Juries are the most democratic aspect of the criminal trial process and are a crucial aspect in representing the interests and needs of the community.

Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. Value: Justice- this is the framework from which this debate should be judged based on the usage of ought to be used in the face of perceived INJUSTICE

Trial by jury is a fundamental part of our justice system. But it should not be functioned in a way that penalizes the jurors. Every year, people who are convicted of a crime receives millions of dollars for legal aid lawyers, but a little is given to taxpaying Canadians who sit on

The article Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice system was written in December, 1995 in a Yale Law Journal by Paul Butler, and then later republished in 2015 in Introduction to Legal Studies. This article was published in North America, for academics in the law stream, or anyone with an interest in law. The author poses different views on the racism in todays court rooms faced by African Americans. In this essay, I will examine the article in detail to determine whether or not the author has been accurate with his conclusions, and whether these conclusions apply today.

ught about jury nullification as a young law student, I was inclined to be against it. Yes, it could potentially be used to curb unjust laws. But it can also be a vehicle for jury prejudice and bias. Most notoriously, all-white juries in the Jim Crow-era South often acquitted blatantly guilty white defendants who had committed racially motivated crimes against blacks. Moreover, it seems unfair if Defendant A gets convicted while Defendant B is acquitted after committing exactly the same offense, merely because B was lucky enough Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since they’re under no obligation to bring charges against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

In other words, courts are struggling to successfully and randomly select jury pools with a structure which reflects the racially diverse populations they serve. One reason which has been identified as a cause of this struggle is a “key factor associated with the underrepresentation of minorities is that jury questionnaires in many predominantly minority areas come back to the court as undeliverable or do not come back at all” (Joshi & Kline, n.d.). So, if the court cannot locate a potential juror or does not obtain a completed form back, this significantly cuts down on the potential jurors which Prosecutors and Defenders have to choose from. By implementing a mandated jury for each and every criminal trial, not only are the benefits of receiving an impartial and fair trial increased, but the opportunity to have the evidence heard in order to come to a verdict rather than basing it off of the defendant’s race or gender is also

Jury nullification is when a jury returns a not guilty verdict, even when they believe that a defendant is guilty of the charge for which they are being prosecuted (Hall, 2015). A defendant can argue that the jury disregarded the law if the law is viewed as harsh or unfavorable (Hall, 2015). A prosecutor, nor a judge, may ask a jury to nullify. A jury can only be instructed to consider nullification by the defense (Hall, 2015). In the case of United States v. Dougherty (1972), nine people, including Dougherty, broke into a chemical company, damaging property as a way to protest the company’s support of the Vietnam War (United States v. Dougherty, n.d.).

Racial differences within the court system of the United States can create various interpretations of laws and the impartiality of such laws. Minorities within this country may believe that the criminal justice system has prejudices and may dismiss the legality of certain laws. Jury nullification is a process in which members of the jury exonerate a person of a guilty verdict although the evidence presented in the case overwhelmingly proves the person’s guilt. People within the jury may believe the laws are not fair, do not apply to the particular case, or they may empathize with the defendant (McNamara & Burns, 2009).

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

Jury nullification undermines legal stability by wrongfully distributing lawmaking powers and destroying due process and objective application. Legal expert, Erick Haynie writes:

Australian common law restricts the final judgement and decree to the judge and with good reason. Sentencing for juries, although alleviating the power of justice to the community, is not as effective has relieving all power to the judge. 'In 2011 a study of trends and issues in crime and criminal justice no. 407 was executed to discover the public opinion and sentencing tendencies of a jury, this study found that out of 138 trials juries were far more lenient than judges in their sentencing '. This was an important study as it gauged then discovered that the community and public are misinformed or unaware of the multitude of policies and principles that must be known before sentencing. A judge has a far more knowledgeable stance towards all prosecutions in a deeper and more calculated manor than a jury ever could. Sentencing is a more in-depth and crucial judiciary power than be known to many and must be handled by properly informed minds in order to achieve the proper and just aim of the sentence for the defendant. Although the use of juries can be neccesary, their sense of leniency and sympathy towards sentencing does not benefit them, which is one of the main aims for the judicary when sentencing and is why it is normally left to the judge. prinicples of sentencing when left in the correct hands can find benfits for both parties involved, the correct hands being the judicary or judge.

In societies, many institutional injustices exist, whether they be avoidable or not. One injustice in particular that is very traumatizing are wrongful convictions meaning an innocent being wrongfully convicted by any court of law. Now, wrongful convictions is one the most corrupted aspects of Canada’s justice system to date. Which is why it is integral to understand the causes in order to find solutions, there are a plethora of causes, most notably false confessions, plea bargains and systemic discrimination.