Jury nullification is a process whereby a panel of judges in a case efficiently invalidates a law by setting free a defendant despite of the weight of proof not in favors of him or her. In the current society, ethnicity has been found out to have an outcome in judicial practices and courtroom proceedings according to research done by different scientist. It does have various results on the dissimilar places we dwell. Poverty stricken places have been found out to experience more crime than areas where there is fruitful employment and maintained wealth. Problems of both class and race have an effect on the probability of connection with the Criminal justice System as well as treatment in the system. Tension will keep on continuing in the court system if the society keeps it in survival. One of the ways to stop this is by enlightening the police and anyone else involved in the criminal justice career. At different instances, people get to be judged due to his or her ethnicity and race they belong to. For instance, Muslims have been perceived for a very long time to be terrorists due to the attacks that happened in the United States 9/11.
There are several questions that individuals need to ask, do the jury nullification reveal perceptions of genuineness rather than the genuine truth. In actual fact, as persons we validate truth in our own values by assessing the values and attitudes of others. Persons that are in support of jury nullification consider that it should happen for a selection of reasons, in spite of the way of thinking of the opposing party. However, followers perceive that jurors should be well-versed to the quantity of power voted for when need may arise to take priority over an irrational conviction. It is thought that jurors are introduced as a balance system and check, whereby the information is used to shield against government totalitarianism. Juries also put in extra protection against unjust prosecutions.
Opponents perceive that jury nullification is a major mistake comprised in the Criminal justice Systems. Most of the people believe that having the ability to invalidate allows arbitrarily selected jurors to pass laws based on their individual observations, rather than procedures planned by legislators. Additionally, it replicates the old proverb, if it is not broke, do not fix it, shimmering beliefs that have been used by the system for centuries not including nullification so why adjust it. The opposing party believes that jury nullification is inconsistent with the purpose of the justice system, illustrating differing results amid related cases based on inclination among the jurors.
For instance, John peter Zenger a printer was arrested in 1734 due to rebellious libel against his majesty’s administration. During his time there was a Colony law in U.S that prohibited publication of anything without the governments go ahead. On his trial day he claimed to have published the article however he argued that truth facts affirmed vindicated their publication (Meinhold et al, 2009). The judge told the panel of judges that genuineness is not reason for libel however; truth builds the libel extra nasty. With all the claims from the judge, the jury took only few minutes to ignore the judge’s orders on law hence finding out that Zenger was not guilty. This illustrates the work of the jury in safeguarding the defendants against tyranny and unjust law.
In conclusion, jury nullification in relation to race is greatly debatable problem either for or against. Each case has a strong belief and particulars to support them plus a selection of reasons. Jury nullification in relation to race should not be accomplished by jurors. Race based jury nullification do not encourage unity in different societies. This thinking process is merely racial as well as based on inequity whereby as a community we are attempting to educate people on the negative issues brought up by race discrimination.