The jury is the ultimate decider as to whether a person spends life in prison or spends the rest of their life as a free man. Jurors are considered the bringers of justice, but their are points when they must go against the law in order to achieve this justice. Paul Butler, the author of this article, states that he often supports jury nullification if it truly does bring about justice. This "nullification" is when a jury comes to a decision that goes against some certain laws or rules. Obviously, many people would see a problem with this, but not me. Sure, I am behind a jury when they pronounce a murderer guilty, but there are some cases where the laws are against justice in some ways. In countless of those "Law & Order" type shows, we come across hundreds of court cases where it is clear that justice will not be served if the lawyers follow the strict guidelines laid out by the United States Constitution. In my opinion, there are some cases where jury nullification is necessary to maintain justice.
Butler's strategy in writing this article is able to effectively translate his passion for this subject. The first paragraph of the article is suggesting to any potential future jurors to vote "not guilty" if they ever come across a marijuana case, even they know the person dealt or smoked marijuana. By stating this opinion as the first sentence of the article, it becomes clear right away where he stands on the issue. This type of ethos and pathos appeal continues on through the article, as he becomes very passionate about maintaining justice even if it defies some laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
I now know what "nullification" means
ReplyDelete