The United States legal system is far from perfect. This fact is a nightmare for many who suffer from the shortcomings of the legal system put into practice. However, in many cases, it is by comparing the ideal version of the legal system to how we put justice into practice that we attempt to evaluate whether or not a practice is “fair.”
One such practice of the legal system derived from the ideals of justice is that of jury nullification. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this as “the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge’s instructions and contrary to the jury’s findings of fact.” Essentially, the jury is allowed to make any decision they reach, even if they believe the other verdict aligns better with the evidence and law surrounding the case.
This legal power of the jury is best represented through an example. One of the most famous cases of jury nullification was the trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian was accused of murdering his terminally ill patients. He was known as a mercy doctor because he would give lethal injection to those patients who wished to be euthanized. He had admitted to killing his patients, yet his charges for murder were dropped by the jury.
This not guilty verdict is thought to be an instance of jury nullification, as Dr. Kevorkian’s actions closely fit the legal definition of murder and there was no doubt as to whether or not he had done it. Because assisted suicide resides in an ethical grey area of murder, the jury must have had trouble finding someone guilty of murder who killed with consent.
But the debate surrounding jury nullification comes down to the question: Does it serve the ideals of the justice system to allow a jury to neglect fact and law in order to reach a verdict that is more amicable for some external reasons? Through my interpretation of ideal law, I would say that jury nullification does serve the ideals of the justice system.
The legal viability of jury nullification as a practice depends on what purpose the jury serves to the ideals of the justice system. It would make no sense to allow jury nullification if the purpose of the jury was to make a final decision based strictly on the law. Interestingly enough, however, I would argue that this is not the purpose of the jury. If this truly were the purpose of the jury, then why would the jury consist of ordinary citizens rather than of individuals that are particularly educated and experienced with law.
Rather than representing a close interpretation of the law, the jury more likely represents the rationale and the feelings of the American public. With this new idea of what the jury represents, jury nullification finds a clear place in the ideals of law. Here, jury nullification serves as a way in which the American public can directly affect the application of laws. To think of it in governmental terms, jury nullification is a check that the American public has over the enforcement of laws.
A jury’s obligation to allow members of the American public who do not necessarily have a familiarity with the law demonstrates that the ideals of the justice system account for non-law interpretation to seep into the court. Jury nullification is merely an extension of the role it seems the American public’s judgment should have in the court system based on what the common practices of law already allow.
