Why should juries uphold an unjust law?
This question goes to the heart of the debate surrounding jury nullification. Advocates argue that one of the traditional roles of the jury has been to act as the voice or conscience of the community, acting as a final safeguard against the power of the state. Jurors may also be aware of local factors that cast doubt upon the reliability of the state or have frustrated the just application of the law; for example, a history of wrongful prosecutions or overzealous police efforts to secure evidence. From this perspective, the jury’s decision to nullify the law can represent popular resistance to an arbitrary, capricious, or draconian imposition of legal sanctions.
