Let’s address the elephant in the room
CGP Grey’s video offers both explanation and examples, and helps explain why Americans mostly don’t know about the topic. i.e. it was used by people in the North to protect slaves running away, but also by people in the South doing lynch mob activities - either way, it reflects a breakdown of all of society and complete and utter lack of trust in the governing bodies, and a lifting up of personal preferences above the needs of society, to the point of even lying to a judge to accomplish the end goal.
i.e., totally setting aside right vs. wrong, there is a process by which things are most helpful to happen - e.g. voting, and in this case a trial by jury - and this topic completely bypasses that process. In short, it claims that the end justifies the means.
And that is a very dangerous topic indeed. As with the mod on LW, who gets to decide those ends - the Christian God? And who speaks in His place then, you?
The example that comes to mind for me, an Australian, is the Camden 28. They were a group of anti Vietnam war protestors who were acquitted after the jury gave not-guilty verdicts despite clear evidence against them.
Another example is William Lynch who beat a Jesuit priest who sexually assaulted him as a child and was found not guilty by the jury despite admitting guilt
Thanks for sharing!
The thing about jury nullification is that it isn’t a checkbox.
For example you could argue that the OJ Simpson murder trial was a case of jury nullification. It probably wasn’t, the jury just came to a conclusion many people disagree with. In fact OJ was found guilty in the civil trial. Was it truly just the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “a preponderance of evidence”? Or was it jury nullification? Or were the jury idiots? (In which case?)
Rodney King was beaten by police officers but ultimately acquitted, was that jury nullification?
Kyle Rotten shot people but was ultimately acquitted, was that jury nullification?
Additionally, the same law that allows for jury nullification also allows for the opposite situation. Someone who definitely didn’t commit the crime still being convicted.
I’m sure there are plenty of cases where an “unfair” verdict is rendered. Proving actual jury nullification is difficult, unless jurors actively speak out about it, which even then can be risky.
Reminder that the Nazi cop that found the most damning evidence in the OJ trial was literally a Nazi cop.
I’d have acquited on the basis of reasonable doubt as well.
