Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 401–423 | Cite as

A Defence of Jury Nullification

  • Thom BrooksEmail author
Article

Abstract

In both Great Britain and the United States there has been a growing debate about the modern acceptability of jury nullification. Properly understood, juries do not have any constitutional right to ignore the law, but they do have the power to do so nevertheless. Juries that nullify may be motivated by a variety of concerns: too harsh sentences, improper government action, racism, etc. In this article, I shall attempt to defend jury nullification on a number of grounds. First, I discuss the use of general verdicts and reject their replacement in criminal trials by special verdicts. Second, I examine verdicts based upon mistakes and racial prejudice, turning my attention to perverse verdicts and the question of whether or not juries are guilty of legislating when nullifying the law. Finally, I look at the problem of the awarding of excessive damages by juries. My goal will be to provide a sound theoretical defence of the practice of jury nullification.

Keywords

bifurcated trials damages equity general verdicts Hegel jury libel nullification perverse verdicts punishment Rawls rights special verdicts trial 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of NewcastleNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations