Juries 1

 

In a June 15 letter “Justice must be consistent or our nation is doomed” the author respectfully challenged my assertion that in criminal cases, juries have the power to judge both facts and the law in question when deciding a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

 

The jury’s veto power has been an integral part of our justice system since the very beginning.

 

In 1771, John Adams stated: "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

 

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

 

Under the “Fugitive Slave Law” and during alcohol prohibition juries frequently refused to convict people who were obviously guilty of violating those laws.  They’ve done the same with certain “endangered species” prosecutions as well.

 

The author of the letter stated that “Our nation is a nation of laws that dictate what justice is.”  Wrong!  Our laws are often based upon POLITICS, not justice.  If a man who has three DUI convictions (and is thus a felon, forbidden to possess a firearm) uses a handgun to defend his family against a violent attack, should he be sent to prison?

 

In such cases, should the jury recognize the injustice of the prosecution and acquit the defendant, or should it send him to prison, telling him “Hang on!  We’ll work with the legislature to get the law changed so you can be freed”?

 

Any child can recognize injustice when it sees it.  

 

Should we, as “adults,” IGNORE injustice when we see it, simply because a judge told us that it was our duty to do so?