User talk:Diminishedchord

Jury Nullification
I have to write tons of essays for an intro politics class and I figured I might as well post my essays here just in case they help anybody in any way. I AM NOT A POLITICS MAJOR OR MUCH OF A WRITER IN ANY SENSE (EXCEPT MUSIC), so, use my essays just to get ideas. The essay question: 16. One of the persistent elements of the American political culture is the idea of nullification. It keeps popping up all over the political spectrum--on the left, on the right, in the center. If an American seriously objects to a law he/she can appeal to a higher law--to God's law, to Natural Law, to universal standards of justice. Thus, when this person, as a protest, violates the law it is done out of respect for law--some higher law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his several campaigns of civil disobedience, appealed to higher law. Or the objector can appeal to a lower law--to the will of the people--claiming that the local will of the citizens is more democratic, more authentic than the will of a larger electorate represented by the national government. Militia groups in places like Montana and Tennessee have claimed that the true, authentic will of the local people is not being respected by the national government--leading some to argue that local sentiment has more legal validity than national law (such as national laws restricting ownership of assault weapons.) Currently, "jury nullification" is a hot topic. Do some research on how the debate over jury nullification reflects the long history of nullification in the US. What are your views on jury nullification.? (Be sure to cite any sources you use.) MY ESSAY ANSWER: Jury nullification can work in favor or against you, depending on what your personal ideologies are on the issue at hand. One day you may support the idea of jury nullification, but the next day you may wish not to support it. Jury nullification allows the jury to make judgments based off how they feel, not simply the facts. If a jury finds a law to be unethical, they have the right to find a defendant innocent even if that person broke a law. When I first read about jury nullification my first thought was, why have a jury if they are only to make a verdict based on facts and what the law, policy, or Constitution states? A judge that has studied law and politics and has the Constitution memorized would be better suited for that job, but if you want to know what the will of the people is then ask a jury what their verdict is based on conscience, facts, and laws; give the jury the power to judge not only the defendant, but the law itself. If a nation does not wish to stray from laws, policies, and the federal Constitution then they should not support jury nullification. I also immediately thought of the days of prohibition. People that drank and went to speakeasies or owned them and still sold alcohol believed that it was their given right to have access to alcohol. As a matter of fact, people believed it was their right so much so that there were more bars during prohibition then before alcohol was illegalized. “In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies--twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition.” (Mintz, S. (2007). Change this text to the title of the section. Digital History.) The illegality of alcohol was many times not recognized in courts tried by juries. The American Humanist Association states in their article, Jury Nullification - laws passed by minority can be subverted using jury nullification, “A classic example of jury nullification in action is the role it played in ending Prohibition. As more and more juries refused to convict people who had clearly violated Prohibition laws, prosecutors were forced to stop handling these cases, thereby opening the door for the repeal of Prohibition.” So it is obvious how important jury nullification can be in further expressing democracy in the courts. But should the court be concerned with people’s conscience on issues regarding laws, policies, and the Constitution? The case supporting jury nullification above can also quickly be turned on itself in the light of the Jim Crow days. Julian Heicklen writes in an article called Jury Nullification, “…the fact that all-white juries in the southern states refused to convict whites of crimes against blacks.” Jury nullification allowed for whites that committed crimes against blacks, even murder, to walk away unscathed by the law. In these cases, jury nullification does not seem like such a great idea. The court is one of the few places that public opinion does not dominate. Judges in the Supreme Court are appointed life terms for the reason that they only have to worry about upholding laws and the Constitution and not bothering with the politics of keeping the public satisfied and hope for a re-election. The idea of jury nullification fits the supporting ideologies of the times. Jury nullification prevents punishment from laws that do not fit popular ideas, whether those popular ideas are “right” or not. So when I say that you can support jury nullification one day, then change your mind the next, I really am stating that jury nullification can support you and your ideologies one day and then not the next. I personally would never argue with a law against murder and would be quite upset if jury nullification let somebody off that committed such a crime, yet if the issue were against the use of marijuana, I would hope the defendant would be found innocent (or hope the law would be found to be unethical therefore letting the defendant walk away with no charges). If a nation wants to have a check against laws and policies then jury nullification should be a part of that nation’s system, but if the nation only wants their laws, policies, and Constitution to be upheld by the courts then jury nullification is not the way to go.