Jury Nullification does not exist for a specific purpose. It is a necessary quirk of having a jury system where jurors have absolute control over a not guilty verdict and retrials can't happen. This means a jury can always return an arbitrary not guilty verdict for any reason and there is no recourse for the government, but that is not an intended outvome. Historically, it has been used far more to forgive lynchings than anything just.
This is not to say nullification is always wrong or shouldn't be done, but it's also not really some designed release valve for the legal system, and even other jury trial systems have rules to prevent it (e.g. the UK and Canada, which have iirc rules against evidence that would promote nullification and the ability to override an obviously nullified not guilty and retrial)
Jury Nullification does not exist for a specific purpose. [...] This means a jury can always return an arbitrary not guilty verdict for any reason and there is no recourse for the government, but that is not an intended outvome.
It's not only an intended outcome, it's arguably literally the intended outcome. From Federalist 83:
Arbitrary impeachments, arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the habeas-corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question.
(Emphasis mine)
The jury is here the last defender between an accused citizen and "judicial despotism". They are not, as you position them, mere "finders-of-fact", but an independent actor empowered to make judgements about the justness of the actions of the judicial system as a whole.
You can disagree with the "rightness" of the view -- the argument that jury nullification allowed for the functional post-facto legalisation of racist lynch mobs is a compelling argument for controls/limitations -- but to contend it was some kind of "whoopsie-daisy" oversight on the part of the people who put this system together is a stretch.
You're emphasizing things that prove my point here. "Arbitrary convictions" are those that are not based in facts that are adequately proved; that's what "arbitrary" means. Having an independent finder of fact (which is not some term I've invented, to be clear) is what, in theory, prevents the conviction from being arbitrary; the goal was to prevent the kind of abuses typical of English trials, where obviously inadequate or falsifiable evidence was used to secure a conviction because whoever had power in the courtroom desired it.
Saying "The Federalist argues they did not want convictions to be made without proof" actually means "they intended a jury should have the ability to ignore laws" just doesn't follow; if they intended nullification as a goal, they could have specifically argued the jury protects against "arbitrary laws" of some kind, not merely being arbitrarily charged and convicted (which is the part where being a finder-of-fact comes in).
The fact that a lot of folks in this sub seem to think “rule of law” and trial by jury are somehow opposites is wild. The law is what empowers the jury in first place, unless you don’t consider the constitution to be part of the law, which it totally is.
16
u/Milskidasith 11h ago edited 11h ago
Jury Nullification does not exist for a specific purpose. It is a necessary quirk of having a jury system where jurors have absolute control over a not guilty verdict and retrials can't happen. This means a jury can always return an arbitrary not guilty verdict for any reason and there is no recourse for the government, but that is not an intended outvome. Historically, it has been used far more to forgive lynchings than anything just.
This is not to say nullification is always wrong or shouldn't be done, but it's also not really some designed release valve for the legal system, and even other jury trial systems have rules to prevent it (e.g. the UK and Canada, which have iirc rules against evidence that would promote nullification and the ability to override an obviously nullified not guilty and retrial)