# Legal Theory -- Jury Nullification **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2003, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237 "2003-04-30T22:41:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2003, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/61 "2003-05-04T02:13:28Z")
**Evil** , the general nation wide conviction rate in criminal cases may well be something like 90%, but only when you count a plea as a conviction. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the over all rate were anything less. Prosecutors win most contested cases too. I would guess, however, that much of the explanation for this is not that juries have no spines, but that good prosecutors only try good cases and important cases and in the others “make an offer (the defendant) cannot refuse.” Remember that most criminal cases are not the stuff of murder mystery novels. Usually the facts are pretty obvious and easily proven. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/62 "2003-05-11T00:58:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > As I said: it is antithetical to a nation founded on the principle of representative democracy. And what’s wrong with that? > [@](#): > > As a general principle, no, because the constitution is the product of democratic decisionmaking. It wasn’t handed down from on high – it was written and put into place via democratic processess. As such, the judiciary must enforce its provisions. So do yuo have a problem with jury nullification being used to block unconstitutional laws? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/63 "2003-05-11T04:03:16Z")
I do. Jury nullification saves only the accused in that case from the unconstitutional law. Much better to let the appellate process work and find the law unconstitutional, which will save ALL from the reach of that law. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/64 "2003-05-11T06:12:39Z")
Sure, the appelate process is better, but isn’t jury nullification better than nothing? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/65 "2003-05-11T08:11:23Z")
**The origin of jury independence** According to _The Law’s Strangest Cases (ISBN 1-86105-463-7)_, the ability of a jury to disregard the Bench dates to Sept 1670 when William Penn was charged with Unlawful Assembly and the jury, whose foreman was one Edward Bushel, refused to convict. For the full story see pp 20-23. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/66 "2003-05-11T13:50:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*Sure, the appelate process is better, but isn’t jury nullification better than nothing? \*\* False dilemma. The apellate process judges the constitutionality of the law. If it fails to overnturn the law, then your premise was false: the law is, in fact, constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237/67 "2003-05-11T20:55:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*False dilemma. > > The apellate process judges the constitutionality of the law. If it fails to overnturn the law, then your premise was false: the law is, in fact, constitutional. \*\* Simply because a court has declared a law constitutional, that doesn’t make it so, and denying cert most certainly does not make a law constituional. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-theory-jury-nullification/172237.md?page=3)