In the book chapter, the author argues that jury nullification is justified as it serves to advance the interests of justice.
The author begins by saying that jury nullification is not new and it is part of the history of America and has shaped the country over the years. Weinsten cites the acquittal of the people involved in fighting injustice before independence from the British. If the jury stuck to the law as it were then, the result would have been injustice. With jury nullification, however, the outcome was something better than the law provided. Moreover, the author claims that the grounds for jury nullifications are strong in the case law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Next, the author claims that the modern legal field is littered with cases that are difficult to solve, as they are also moral issues. He cites the case of the person who kills an abusive partner or a person arrested with drugs for personal use. According to the law, the two cases demand heavy sentence as retribution. However, following the law as it is does not guarantee justice because the statute ignores pertinent issues. Drugs for personal use, for instance, do not harm people, and there is no victim in such a case. Therefore, in those circumstances, the author claims that jury nullification is the only way to guarantee justice.
The author considers the objection that nullification is illegal as it involves rejecting the evidence and the provisions of the law. However, Weinsten argues that unjust laws are no laws. People should not be under obligation to follow or obey such laws as they create injustice as opposed to protecting the rights of the people.
In conclusion, the author says that jury nullification is part of American legal tradition and it is an insurance against excessive and unreasonable laws. Therefore, despite the controversy the nullification continues to attract, it is good for American democracy and for the rights of the people.
References
Weinsten. Considering jury “nullification”: when may and should a jury reject the law to do justice
