Jury Nullification Essay

Law is a system that is accessible to everyone, and we encounter to it in different ways. we may contact by pleasant or unpleasant, whether tangible or intangible, direct or indirect, but in dispute of all these things it is a constant force in our lives. There are various theoretical perspective among scholars that emphasize the rule of law as importance issue to understanding law as a neutral, predictable, and stable system of social order that responsible for the equal treatment of all citizens. We have learned that rather than accepting law as an abstract system of equality, predictability and certainty. It is more logic to understand law as a system in practice. Law can be inaccessible, arbitrary, and ambiguous. Law is related to a system
72). Jury trial for the first time established by Morgan of Glamorgan. The original concept of jury began in England. Canada pursued jury trial of the criminal and civil law conducted under the old common law of England(Vago & Nelson pg. 67). Jury nullification is a method that a jury acquits a defendant who is mentioned to be guilty of the crime that he or she has been charged. In order to prove the defendant person not guilty, the jury rejects to be a touch by the facts of the case or the judge opinion regard the law.Instead the jury votes its conscience(Paul Butler pg.131). Juries proration in Canada are technically secrete whereas US is countering example that jurors are often see interview to discuss about what happen to the juror’s room what did the jurors discusses.The jury room is essentially secreting what happen is stays in the jury room. It is kind of like vaguest. In Canada people are allowed to ask juries to reveal the deliberation from juries, but we are allowing to talk to them as experience as a jury. Juries are responsible for the triers of fact Since the purpose of trail in the court is to find out that whether it is legal conduct that the individual execute(Vago & Nelson pg.67). For this reason, the presumption or the question that the evidences that are presented to them for triers of fact are valid and that juries capable to access the facts. The supreme court of canada consider the charter of right for the jury meaningless. unless the existence of strong guarantee for present of impartial duties, that illustrate possibility of facts that is appropriate decision for society. For example, in the case of Latimer the juries found the latimer guilty and they recommend one year of imprisonment. The trial did not become unfair because the trial judge undermined the jury’s foundation of the case