Against Jury Nullification

Based on research and statistics, there are a number of law makers and citizens who are against raced based jury nullification. Some black lawmakers have said that since a jury is representative of a community then jurors should have the right to decide which people they will allow to live among them. (Butler, 1995) This basically means that jurors exercise their power based on conscience and not based on the facts of the case. This means that black juries would acquit non-violent black defendants even in cases where they were clearly guilty to nullify the effects of a predominantly white judicial system. The belief here is that the laws are inherently unfair because they were created by and for white people. (Butler, 1995) Clearly there is a place for jury nullification in the US. There has been a long history of unfair laws and practices in the country and allowing the jury the power to overturn or nullify them is a good way to keep the government in check. (Jones, 2004), but many still are against the concept. The real question is more about race-based nullification. Should race be a factor when juries consider nullification as an option? The answer to this is complicated if a jury really feels that a defendant was targeted unfairly based on race shouldn't they have some power to affect the trial. (Butler, 1995) Also without a complete revamping of the legal system how would one go about fixing the problem? Can nullification be eliminated with our current system, probably not. Law makers and groups who are against this feel that the concept is no longer being used for what it was originally intended for and there are individuals that are guilty who are being set free back into our communities. The idea is to really re-examine the selection process. With nullification as a real possibility then prosecutors can act to eliminate it by paying more attention to homogeneity during the selection process. Any prosecutor who allows a homogenous jury