Jury Nullification and Marijuana law

[Wokko]

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/jury-nullifies-georgia-weed-law-finds-man-not-guilty-despite-admittedly-growing-marijuana/

I can see this happening in Australia if the Federal and State Governments keep stalling on legalisation. Juries are able to find someone not guilty not because of the facts of the case, but because the law is unjust. Doesn't happen too often, and I'd imagine any juror who said they knew about nullification would be excused pretty quickly (good way to get out of Jury duty too )

[David]

I can't understand why this is allowed, to be honest. Surely the jury's role is to assess the guilt of the defendant, not the merit of the law. Is there any legal precedent for such a thing here?

[Wokko]

What other recourse would there be against unjust laws? You say you're against many of the more draconian laws made by our Government (sedition etc) but you're saying if you were on a jury you'd convict someone of those offences? Governments around the world make horrendously unjust laws, but they rely on complicit fools to enact them; first police and then juries.

I would've thought you of all people would support a jury finding someone not guilty when the law itself is unjust.

https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/juries-dont-always-follow-the-law/

[David]

To be honest, I'm just not sure I'd have any other option – and even if we do, I'd feel uncomfortable enacting it. The NSW case in the article you've posted above seems like a simple breach of correct process: the jury were given one task, and effectively flunked it out of sympathy for the victim (and/or lack of regard for the killer's human rights).

My belief is that laws should be dictated by parliamentary bills and by voting, not by a group of twelve people deciding to throw it out the window. I've always understood the role of the jury to be a method of weighing the fact of guilt or innocence (with the judge's role then being to decide how to apply that finding to the sentence), not a de facto law reform committee. Obviously a judge can't throw out a case because they disagree with the law, so why can a jury? Furthermore, if one accepts this for laws one finds unjust, what's to stop juries from enacting it in other instances – say, for women being tried for killing their husbands in domestic violence cases, people committing acts of revenge or vigilante justice, or for police being tried for killing unarmed citizens? Surely we want the law to function as it has been designated, not according to the morals, biases or whims of jury members.

Perhaps I need to think about this provision more carefully, but I am honestly surprised that it's even an option in some jurisdictions, and am glad that it doesn't seem to be in Australia (even if NSW courts de facto allow it by not requiring juries to elaborate on their findings).

[Wokko]

It's not a breach, it's part of the duty of a jury. One that unfortunately isn't advertised or educated. The Jury is the final goal keeper against unjust laws as well as the arbitrator of facts. They're supposed to judge both the law and the facts.

[David]

Aren’t they expressly asked not to do the former, though?

[Pies4shaw]

They only decide the facts - they take instruction from the judge as to the content of the law. Of course, juries do bring in perverse verdicts from time to time and we never really know why (because we are not entitled to be told - juries give verdicts, not reasons).

[K]

^ But juries can give reasons and opinions also, if they want, right?

[Mugwump]

Juries can decide what they like, within the verdicts available to them. Most people have enough of a sense of duty to realise that they can’t personally decide what the law should be in that setting, and if a majority verdict (10-2 or 11-1) is enough to convict, then oddballs who object to a law in principle are themselves nullified to a large extent.

I can see it becoming a growing problem, however, such that it might imperil the jury system, in time. We have educated many people to be “free thinkers”, without educating them to think. As a result, many modern people think they know better than authority and the law.

[Bucks5]

Judges in our system direct the jury on how the law needs to be applied.

[Mugwump]