OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a “subscribers only” blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it’s a feature or a bug.
If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.
You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.
By that logic, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat?
The problem with your logic is that you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice. If they truly don’t, then forget the judiciary as a problem, because the society itself isn’t going to hold up. So in that way, applying your logic here and under that assumption you are right, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat when people no longer care about acting in good will?
I’m not assuming that at all. Jurors have a very specific role, which is to determine whether the evidence against a defendant is sufficient to find them guilty of the charges against them. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.
Technically, you’re correct. In this particular case though, I don’t think it’s the best kind of correct.
Juries are the triers of fact when present. In a civil case, that means the judge can ask all kinds of nuanced questions in the jury instructions, as that could be necessary for the judge’s application of the law later down the line.
In the US criminal justice system, the laws are meant to be interpretable by the common person (a lot of work being done by “meant-to-be”). A judge only asks them a single question: For the charge X, how do you find? Since juries do not need to justify their decision, they can use whatever reasoning they want to behind closed doors to reach their decision: facts, ethics, or flipping a coin. The lawyers use voir-dire to try to exclude jurors that would be too biased, or would be willing to use a coin flip (juries almost universally take their job seriously—they hold the freedom of someone in their hands.)
As mentioned elsewhere, an acquittal by a jury in the US is non-reviewable. It doesn’t matter why they acquit. Convictions, OTOH, are reviewable, and judges have famously thrown out guilty verdicts from juries before.
Judges = letter of the law
Jurors = spirit of the law
Jurors have no idea what “the law” actually is.
When you say “spirit of the law” really what you mean is “the vibe”.
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
It is fixed, albeit imperfectly.
Jurors are instructed to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.
To return a verdict of “not guilty” despite knowing that the defendant is guilty, merely because jurors know they can not be prosecuted is still corruption.
Aren’t jury trials statistically more likely to result in a false coviction than other trials? Given how much presentation, charisma, gender and race can influence a verdict its already about how much the jury like the defendant.
Not really. I mean sure some jurors may not like a defendant because of their race, but the court process seeks to mitigate these issues. For example there are 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is required. The hope being that the majority of jurors will be able to convince a few racist ones to set aside their prejudism.
This isn’t really a reason to just throw out the whole process and make trials popularity contests.
Surely the judge still has a role, and that is to determine the punishment if found guilty.
… but in this case everyone is advocating jury nullification so as to avoid punishment, so you don’t really need a judge to determine punishment.
The judge’s other main role in a trial with jury is to actually run the proceedings of the trial. Order of operations, keeping the two counsels in line, scheduling, etc.