
*Written for PHIL 206 at Purdue University*

Jury nullification lets juries play the finder of fact and the finder of law. That is, they can find a defendant guilty of breaking the law, yet still acquit them for any reason. I will be referencing the  'morally blameless lawbreaker' in the context of jury nullification. This could include cases from marijuana possession to assisting the escape of slaves. The idea of nullification is a natural principle to our legal system as different levels of authority such as prosecutors and law enforcement all apply discretion to the law to safeguard the rights of morally blameless lawbreakers. In this way, jury nullification is positioned to serve as a final check to prevent injustice in the legal system. 

When the law is broken, it commands punishment to follow, however, our respect for the law should not trump justice. Huemer rejects this notion of political obligation in favor of the purpose of law – which is to promote justice. He criticizes blind allegiance to the law saying “we value a law … not because of some drive to follow rules merely as such, but because law is a tool in the service of justice” (Huemer 17). Laws are established to protect human rights and uphold justice. Therefore, sacrificing justice to preserve the law when the law contradicts its own ideals is irrational. Huemer’s skepticism towards political obligation suggests that we follow the law not for the law's sake but because it is rooted in moral principles. From this perspective, a jury’s verdict should come from their evaluation of the moral principles of the law. Punishing a morally blameless lawbreaker would signify an extreme reverence for the law itself at the expense of its intended purpose.

The jury is not the only party responsible for protecting the unjustly accused, but they are in a position to ensure justice with minimal consequences. The judge, police officers, and prosecutor all share the burden to prevent the law from becoming a tool of injustice. However, these positions come with consequences that discourage them from helping an accused person. The prosecutor can refuse to press charges against a morally blameless lawbreaker and the police officers can refuse to take them into custody. Yet, the penalty for doing so could result in termination or even legal action. By contrast, the jury is in a unique position to fix injustice. “Their decision to nullify in a particular case will generally not reduce the probability of appropriate nullification by future juries” (Huemer 15).  By law, they are protected from jurisdiction and have no vested interests in the judicial system. Thus, verdicts that contradict an unjust law can be inexpensively delivered. If they choose to free an unjustly accused person, they suffer no repercussions and leave the door open for future juries to do the same. They are unburdened by political or professional interests to ensure justice is being served.

On the other hand, Jury nullification can be seen as undemocratic as it replaces the will of Congress – and transitively the nation – for the whims of a few jurors. The jurors would hold a disproportionate amount of power if they were allowed to ignore the letter of the law and cast their vote based on their conscience. When democracy comes to mind we think about the process of voting for representatives who enact laws similar to our own beliefs. When legislators make policies contrary to their campaign promises, they are held accountable by the people. However, as Gary Simson notes in his paper “Jury Nullification in the American System: A Skeptical View”, “Jurors can decide as they please and then escape public accountability as they return to anonymity in the general population” (Simson 513). The years that went into citizens campaigning for change and the weeks spent by representatives debating on the House floor are thrown to waste whenever a single juror decides that, for whatever reason, the law should not be applied. One can only hope that juries act with rationality and justice. 

For this reason, jury nullification gives jurors the power to set back national progress. A historical example of jury nullification blocking national progress is the case of Bryon De La Beckwith. Beckwith was a white supremacist who in 1963 was accused of assassinating civil rights leader Medgar Evans in Jackson, Mississippi. Though he was tried in two separate trials, the all-white juries failed to convict him. Though the law demanded justice for Evan’s death, the jury’s personal biases toward him failed to achieve justice. Jury nullification could result in similar cases where the will of a few jurors can move the outcome of a trial further from justice. 

While it may seem that jury nullification is undemocratic and undermines the thorough legislative process, it is no different than other legal entities like law enforcement or prosecutors using discretion to avoid bashing morally blameless lawbreakers with the uncompromising billy club of the law. 

Jury nullification is another method within our legal system to avoid punishing morally blameless lawbreakers. Nullification of the law does not equate to subversion. It is part of our legal system to ensure the law is being used as a tool of justice. In fact, nullification happens quite frequently and is not looked at as a danger to the stability of the law. 

Say a person is in Indiana driving on a long, straight, empty road in the middle of the day which has a 60 mph speed limit. Given the conditions of the road, they cruise comfortably at 86 mph. A police officer pulls them over and tells them that by going 26 miles over the speed limit they have committed a misdemeanor. Instead of writing 86 mph, the officer writes 85 mph, saving them from a reckless driving charge. 

By applying discretion to this context, the officer effectively “nullified” the speeding law made by Indiana legislators. However, few would condemn the actions of the officer. The officer understood the purpose of the law (to protect against “speed racers”) and that it would not be just to hand this person a punishment unequal to the crime committed. The officer stood between the defendant and the punishment called for by law, yet the officer's actions cannot be considered “undemocratic”. By applying discretion to the circumstance he prevents the letter of the law from unjustly harming a citizen.  Even the writers of the law may agree that this driver’s behavior is not what they intended to punish, thus there is no value in holding to the letter of the law for its own sake. Similarly, the jury will take into account the general principles of the law created and consider the context of the defendant to make sure an unjust punishment does not harm a morally blameless lawbreaker. In contrast to the legislators who wrote the law, the jury is able to consider nuances of a criminal case that legislators may have overlooked. Despite lawyers in D.C. carefully debating every word of the law, it is inevitable that edge cases may be wrongly prosecuted. Jury nullification fills the gap to avoid causing unjust harm.

Even prosecutors have the power to nullify laws by choosing not to proceed with cases. In their responsibility to do justice, they have “prosecutorial discretion” to determine whether statutes are unfair or punish someone beyond their crime. Again, only one person stands between the democratically created law and its execution. However, prosecutorial discretion is looked at mostly in a positive light. It allows prosecutors to drop charges for petty crimes, such as minor drug possessions, or other cases where the law may hurt the defendant unjustly (Mesrobian, 2022). This power does not put the prosecutor above the law. It enables them to use the law as a tool to properly serve justice. 

Jury nullification follows this same principle. Instead of just one prosecutor, there are twelve members from the community to determine whether the law may hurt someone unjustly. Granted, the prosecutor may have higher education than the general community, however, a representative jury may create a more just understanding of the law. Jury nullification should not be interpreted as the jury presiding over the law, rather yet another check to prevent injustice in the legal system.

Having a legal system that institutes multiple checks to ensure the law is being justly applied reduces the chance that the state unjustly punishes an upstanding citizen. By the time a criminal case has made it before a jury it has been signed off by law enforcement, who chose to arrest, and the prosecutor, who chose to prosecute. However, as stated earlier, these roles have limited power to make the just choice. As a last line of defense, the jury must evaluate whether moral principles have been broken to avoid causing unjust harm.

While this represents jury nullification at its best, there are two weaknesses: malicious juries who push their own agendas, and incompetent juries who attempt to exercise judgment but fail to make the right decision. 
Juries holding internal or external biases could result in unfair treatment towards certain groups. For example, this could lead to a higher rate of white people being acquitted for similar crimes that black people have committed. The law, unlike juries, is unable to discriminate, thus the directions of the law should not be undermined.

Class discrimination as a result of jury nullification is a pressing issue, however, to avoid causing unjust harm the solution could explore alternative methods of eliminating bias. It is entirely possible for juries to abuse their power knowingly or unknowingly. This would be terrible by all accounts, however, it is still important to consider that in this case, all acquitted persons are morally blameless lawbreakers who would otherwise have been subjected to an unjust law. Removing jury nullification to promote fairness would mean causing harm to innocent people. Thus, morally blameless lawbreakers should not be convicted in the name of “fairness”. Even in the face of racial discrimination, we should be cautious as to not enforce this “uniform injustice” (Huemer 8). To combat class discrimination by juries, the solution could lie in implementing a more robust system of juror selection. By creating a system that emphasizes diversity and impartiality we can ensure that justice is being met fairly. 

While the idea of nullifying laws implies subversion, nullification is an important and well-respected aspect of our judicial system. We have an obligation to prevent injustice wherever possible, especially when the injustice is committed at the hands of the state. Jury nullification acts as a final safety net to avoid this outcome. 

**Works Cited**

1. Huemer, M. (2016). The duty to disregard the law. *Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12*(1), 1–18. [DOI: 10.1007/s11572-016-9407-4](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-016-9407-4)

2. Mesrobian, C. (2022, May 9). What is prosecutorial discretion? A key criminal justice concept. *Rasmussen University*. [What is prosecutorial discretion?](https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/what-is-prosecutorial-discretion/)

3. Simson, Gary J. "Jury Nullification in the American System: A Skeptical View." *Texas Law Review, 54*(3), March 1976, pp. 488-525. [HeinOnline](https://heinonline.org/)


Jury nullification allows juries to acquit defendants regardless of whether the defendant has actually broken the law. Here, I explain why this is a benefical & natural principle of our legal system. Written for PHIL 206 at Purdue

Jury Nullification: The Last Line of Defense against Judicial Injustice