jurory duty? I heard that if you didnt belive the law was just...?

Question

you had a right to vote not guilty. I.E. lets say someone is being accused of X crime and the evidence showed guilt but you believed that the law was unjust you had the right to then vote not guilty. Anyone who knows where I could find proof of this to settle an argument with a friend of mine gets 10 points.

I want to stress that myself or anybody else thats invovled in this debate is not currently invovled with the courts in any way shape of form.

Answer 1

Actually, whomever told you that is COMPLETELY correct.

It's called Jury Nullification, and it's within your power as a juror.

Answer 2

Yes! Jury nullification used to be far more common when there were lots of unfair laws on the books (like those barring people of color from marrying those of another race, etc.). It's now seen as a bit of an abnormality, though I've heard of juries doing it in some small-quantity drug cases.

Lawyers aren't allowed to argue that you should vote "not guilty" because the law is wrong, but a lawyer will hint at this if he or she thinks that the jury will buy it.

We should stress that it's a HUGE long shot and almost never happens.

Answer 3

The court will instruct you to follow the law. A jury does not make the law or interpret the law. You as a juror are there to determine if a person is guilty or not guilty. The judge will instruct a jury as to how the law reads. I was on a jury where a man had sex with a minor. It didn't matter under what circumstances the sex happened. We as the jury had to find him guilty because that is what the law says.

Answer 4

If you believed that the accused committed the crime, regardless of wether it should be a crime, then you must find him guily. It is up to the lawmakers to strike or ammend the laws as are in the books. The judge in his sentencing of a person convicted of that crime could issue a conditional discharge or any number of lenient sentences if he were also of like mind.

Answer 5

Juty nullification is the final check and balance.

if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.

It was our Constitution that gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority.

"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution

Answer 6

No. I don't have a link or anything, but before you are admitted to the jury panel, you have to agree to uphold the law, as it's written. You have to decide the case based on what the prosecutor and defense lawyer argue.

Your personal beliefs MUST be stated to the judge before the jury is chosen. The judge does give a brief overview before that happens, so you can make a personal decision on your ability to be a fair jurist.

Answer 7

As a juror, your obligation is to weigh the evidence and the facts of the case against the law and determine if actions of the individual violated the laws in place. It is not open to your personal opinion of the law itself. The law IS and was created by representatives elected by the people and for you to manipulate that fact while being placed in a position of power and responsibility is flat out wrong. Does it happen? Yes.

Answer 8

No, if the evidence proves quilt, you have to put your personal belief aside and vote for a conviction. What if someone thought rape or murder were unjust laws.

Answer 9

whoever told you that was giving you more than lies

the laws are there for you to weigh the evidence against. you cannot simply say not guilty because you disagree wit hteh law. if you disagree, that's wherey ou contact your representative to get the law changed.

Answer 10

FNordian is absolutly right. it is called Jury nullification.