Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:14:23 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Paul Butler at The New York Times - wonderful op-ed on jury nullification. As you may remember from my letter to the editor of an earlier Times article about the Julian Heicklen case, I believe that nullification is the ONLY reason for juries. They are a final check on the government, allowing a single determined juror to veto the entire government, if he believes they are attempting to imprison someone for doing nothing wrong.

In October, the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification. Dropping the case against Mr. Heicklen would let citizens know that they are as committed to justice, and to free speech, as they are to locking people up.

Add comment Edit post Add post