The basic summary is that the jury cannot be questioned about the reasons why they reached the verdict they did, or punished for the "wrong" verdict, and therefore jurors are, in practical terms, entirely free to acquit someone even if the law says they are guilty, for example if the jurors think the law is unfair or "the victim deserved…
The basic summary is that the jury cannot be questioned about the reasons why they reached the verdict they did, or punished for the "wrong" verdict, and therefore jurors are, in practical terms, entirely free to acquit someone even if the law says they are guilty, for example if the jurors think the law is unfair or "the victim deserved it" or whatever.
Legally speaking, it is up to the judge to interpret what the legal standard is, and the jury is only supposed to judge the facts to decide whether or not they fit the legal standard, but there is no legal way to punish a jury that ignores this and does what they want. (The verdict could end up overturned if one of the parties makes a successful argument that "no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict", but the jurors themselves can't be punished, unless they admit to something illegal, so bragging about how "of course he did it but we acquitted him because we all hated the guy he murdered" is still a really bad idea.)
(And admitting that you know about this and are willing to do it is a reason to get dismissed from jury duty, because you're saying you might not convict or acquit according to the letter of the law.)
I don’t like “it is up to the judge to interpret the law”. To me, that means different judges could rule differently on a case, regardless what the law says.
Yes, that's a very real problem. In theory they have to interpret it according to precedent, but sometimes there is no precedent, or they decide that it's "not the same" for some reason...
But *somebody* has to decide what the law means, if the law is going to exist at all.
The basic summary is that the jury cannot be questioned about the reasons why they reached the verdict they did, or punished for the "wrong" verdict, and therefore jurors are, in practical terms, entirely free to acquit someone even if the law says they are guilty, for example if the jurors think the law is unfair or "the victim deserved it" or whatever.
Legally speaking, it is up to the judge to interpret what the legal standard is, and the jury is only supposed to judge the facts to decide whether or not they fit the legal standard, but there is no legal way to punish a jury that ignores this and does what they want. (The verdict could end up overturned if one of the parties makes a successful argument that "no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict", but the jurors themselves can't be punished, unless they admit to something illegal, so bragging about how "of course he did it but we acquitted him because we all hated the guy he murdered" is still a really bad idea.)
(And admitting that you know about this and are willing to do it is a reason to get dismissed from jury duty, because you're saying you might not convict or acquit according to the letter of the law.)
I don’t like “it is up to the judge to interpret the law”. To me, that means different judges could rule differently on a case, regardless what the law says.
Yes, that's a very real problem. In theory they have to interpret it according to precedent, but sometimes there is no precedent, or they decide that it's "not the same" for some reason...
But *somebody* has to decide what the law means, if the law is going to exist at all.