What is the jury cancellation?

Jury nullification is the name of the act of the jury in the liberation of the defendant, despite the fact that they actually violated the law to the jury satisfaction. As a result, the defendant is declared innocent, although without the act of canceling the jury, they would be found guilty. In general, the cancellation of the jury is carried out by a jury that disagrees with the law, as a way to prove their objection to the law, and their choice does not to be placed by the person who violated this law. The abolition of the jury is a powerful tool that citizens can use to clarify their opinions on the law, and over time this can result in to help move the laws themselves. The judge can often remind the jury that the question is not whether something bad or bad, but whether the defendant actually committed a crime. In fact, however, the juries have the right and some would argue responsibility to use their own judgment in deciding on their judgment. In fact, it is the introduction of human thinking that is for the processThe jury so central. The annulment of the jury was often responsible for many powerful refutation of unfair laws, but at the same time abuse is open, which can be considered under the underlying fundamental rights.

In fact, the juries were originally conceived largely to ensure that people who make a final judgment of human innocence or guilt were not considered to be external interests, including a strict interpretation of the law. It was assumed that over time the law could divert from its constitutional origin, and became too bureaucratic complexity to actually reflect its original intention. The jury cancellation can therefore be considered as the original purpose of the jury, as documented in a statement by Thomas Paine Thomas Jefferson, in which he noted: "I consider the jury the only anchor, but still imagined a person to whom the government can be held on the principles of its constitution." The first main judge of the Supreme Court, John JAy, he said even more, saying, "The jury has the right to assess both law , as well as the reality in controversy."

There are many famous examples of the abolition of the jury in history, usually in cases where the law was widely perceived at hand as unfair or had a wide fraction of dissent. For example, during the ban, many jurors exercised their right to cancel the jury by finding that they were accused of bootlegging innocent, although they showed that they had committed a crime. Similarly, abolitionist sympathizers would often find the defendant's innocent in cases where they did not get into slaves, although the evidence showed that they had escaped slaves.

However, there is a great controversy about the jury's co -filing, and many people concern that this could be used for racist or bigot goals. For example, theoretically, a racist jury could find the defendant's innocent in the case of minority victims, although the evidence showed that they had committed a crime. There are some questions todayWhether the judge can remove the juror due to the juror if he attempts to use the cancellation of the jury and whether they can even punish those who do not use the law, as written in the case.