I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
Enlighten me. What do you think that reason is?
From where I’m sitting, you have dismissed the entire purpose of a layperson jury as “semantics”, so I would really like to know what “reason” you are talking about.
The role of the jury in criminal trials is to review questions of fact and to determine guilt or innocence according to the law.
True. But a judge can do that. A professional judge, who understands the laws he is applying.
Give your reasoning for a layperson jury.
The requirement for a jury of your peers to find you guilty ensures that a corrupt court can not make arbitrary pronouncements of guilt.