Jury Nullification

The fact that the jury's jury is invalid means that the jury found the defendant innocent as the law itself is inequitable or unfair in certain applications and should not be applied To do. In other words, regardless of what is stipulated by the law, the jury has almost the right to choose the weather, but this person may be guilty or innocent, but sometimes it is not. Our jury should not expect to make a trial only if that person is tried and they should judge that person based solely on all facts.

In the United States colonial juries often exercise invalid powers, and in the case involving freedom of maritime affairs or freedom of speech, invalidation of the jury first appeared before the American Revolutionary War. Many prosecutors in the UK gave up trials on maritime lawsuits because the conviction seems desperate as the invalidity of the jury became very general. In the pre-civil era, the jury refused to convict that it was in violation of the "fugitive slavery law". Later, during the ban, the jury often abolishes the alcohol control law, which may be only 60% of the time. Such resistance will pass the 21st revision and may aid prohibition, abolish the 18th amendment.

In the 21st century, many discussions on the invalidity of the jury are concentrated in the drug law, and some think that these laws are inequitable in principle or are considered to discriminate against certain groups . The invalid publicity organization of the jury presumes that 3-4% of all jury trials contain invalidity and the addition to the recent pending jury is based on the fact that the jury examines the effectiveness or fairness of the law itself It is considered to be indirect evidence that began to. Where the United States Supreme Court was written by the American Attorney General, John Marshall Harlan in 1895, it was judged at a ratio of 5 to 4. The judge was not responsible for speaking to the jury that the law was invalid. This decision, often cited, leads to the usual practices of US judges who punish those who tried to bring invalid assertions to the jury and if they are presented with such arguments, they are inappropriate I declared.

The main ethical question of invalidation of the jury is the tension between democratic autonomy and integrity. The proposed argument is that prosecutors should not seek revocation of the jury and therefore should not be allowed to take jury trials. However, if the prosecutor revokes the law in this situation, the innocence assumption must be denied. (Thus, the invalidity of prosecution is usually defined as denial of prosecution.) The early history of the jury supports the recognition of invalid de facto authority. By the 12th century, the Commonweight Court in the UK started using the jury rather than administrative work. The judging committee consists mainly of "community non-experts". They provide an effective way to resolve conflicts and provide legitimacy.