I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
How is this even a question? If you believe someone is good and they decided to do something against the law but for good reasons, are you going to punish that person? We know rules are important in society and we all aspire to be good citizens but sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we have to abandon our principles or break the law. Nobody is obeying the speed limit when carrying a dying child to hospital and nobody is condemning that person for breaking the law, to give a completely fatuous example.
The reason jurys convict ethically sound defendants is the same reason people fail to make the ethically sound choice in the Milgram experiment.
It doesn’t matter what the legal statutes say, you still have to think for yourself and others to make compassionate choices.