If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system. Racially based jury nullification is and has been a continuous debate for a long time now. Racially based jury nullification may be a benefit in addressing an unfair justice issue while sentencing someone. When it comes to proving that discrimination exists in terms of someone’s race and affects the severity and length of the sentence issued, this is when jury nullification benefits justice issues. If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place.
This is “the practice by law enforcement of considering race as an indicator of the likelihood of criminal behavior” (Robinson 530). The issue of using race to identify people is disputable because minorities feel that it is an act of inequality and also humiliating. However, the Supreme Court supports its legality as long as ethnicity is seen as an important factor that determines the detainment of an individual. Therefore, there are many pros and cons about the legality of this law enforcement technique. During times of war, racial
Because of perceived mistreatment of African American by the criminal justice system, Jury Nullification has become controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants (McNamara & Burns, 2009). Within this paper an explanation will identify if ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices, summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Additionally this paper will include a contemporary example of ethnicity-based jury nullification and conclude by selecting a position for or against ethnicity-based jury nullification while defending the position. Ethnicity Influences Ethnicity not only influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices, but also practices prior to and following. Because racism still exists within the world, it will continue to overlap within the criminal justice system.
Racism can be one of the leading causes for the nullification of a verdict. The same racism exists today driving juries to nullify the law in favor of or against a person charged with a crime. The ethnicity of jurors can influence whether or not nullification takes place. “Jury nullification is often attributed to juries that identify with and share the same characteristics as the defendant, such as the defendant’s racial or ethnic background, socioeconomic status, or value system. The occurrence of this type of nullification has been attributed to a potential response to social conditions, including the perception that the criminal justice system targets minorities,” (Keneally, 2010-2011, p. 945-946).
Jury Nullification Paper The jury’s repudiation to sentence a person even through the presence of a resilient proof which supports guilt is called jury nullification. With regards to handling cases, the jury shouldn’t develop sympathy for it will result to jury nullification. During the trial, sentencing or verdict should always be based on the facts and shouldn’t even concern an individual’s race at all. At an instance wherein the jury couldn’t come up with a conviction due to the fact that race is involved, it is called as race-based nullification which is evidently not good for a murderer can be set free as this occurs. Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong.
James Wetzel CRMJ 101-52 Online Jury Nullification-Article 1 Jury Nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict against the proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a result, the defendant is declared innocent, or is given a lesser penalty, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. While this all seems great, jury nullification is a source of much debate in today’s society. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard or last resort again the wrongful punishment and imprisonment. While others often view it as a violation of the right of a jury and undermining that law.
In Japan they have incorporated what is called The Lay Judge Act, “The Lay Judge Act establishes the ground rules by which Japan’s new criminal trials are to proceed. Two categories of serious crime are to be adjudicated in the new trials: offenses punishable by death or imprisonment for an indefinite period or with hard labor, and offenses in which the victim has died because of an intentional crime. The law does not give defendants the right to waive a lay judge panel (this is a sore point with some opponents of the new system who note that criminal defendants in America can waive their right to trial by jury), but it does grant discretion to the court to determine that a case which qualifies for a lay judge trial may nonetheless be heard by a traditional panel of three professional judges, as when privacy issues arise in a sex offense case, or the defendant is a gangster who might intimidate lay judges”. (http://www.japanfocus.org/-David_T_-Johnson/3212). Lay Judges are picked just like jury trial are in America.
Arguments: Many of these arguments entail the latter efforts of discrimination of which police officers are believed to be the catalyst for such behaviors that can continue to the highest courts. Frankly speaking, the individuals mentioned in these arguments must pass through various police officers’ hands that result in initial arrests on the basis of discrimination or otherwise. Therefore, I will focus on the entire justice system as well as police officers. Race ethnicity: The death penalty is racially discriminatory in rape cases, for example. The Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional because of its biasness.
In this paper, I will discuss the effect that capital punishment has on deterring criminal activity. Capital punishment is the execution of criminals by the state, for committing crimes, regarded so terrible, that this type of punishment is the only acceptable punishment for the crime committers. For decades now, there has been an ongoing debate over the death penalty in America. The chief argument in favor of death sentences is the fact that it can be used as a deterrent. Deterrence is the idea that executing the murderers will decrease the rates of homicide by discouraging future murderers.
First of all, if the crime is as terrible as murder, and it was fully intentional, the privilege should be fully stripped. Some of the criminals in prison lost their right to vote because the crimes they committed were mainly unlawful instead of unjust. Lastly, there could be a series of tests to be given to the prisoners to determine if they are in the right state of mind to vote. When a person commits a crime, the crime will be either as small as fleeing police by motor vehicle, to as big as committing a murder. This is a strong difference in the types of crimes being committed.