The Line of Death Row

In a society that has come far technologically, medically and legally, we are still centered on the discrimination of one another in one way or another. Whether it is through the way we hire and fire employees, give home/car loans, even when it comes to who is entitled to go to which colleges, across this country race is at the tip of conversation contrary to so many that do not see it or believe it. In this paper, Jury Nullification , our group will explore the arguments for and against race-based nullification. We will also include contemporary examples of race-based jury nullification and choose a position for or against it. In all bringing to light that at so many turns (especially in the United States criminal justice system) race does matter one way or another.

The primary arguments against nullification are as follows:

1 Elected legislators, not by jurors chosen randomly from the population, should make Law.

2 Jury nullification would be inconsistent with the law s aspiration that similar cases should be treated similarly because nullification would have unpredictable results in similar cases based on the preferences of different juries regarding the desirability of the same law.

3 The system has worked well for over a century without jury nullification.

(AJS, 2007)

The arguments in favor of nullification are as follows:

1 The Framers of the Constitution believed in the jury as a check-and-balance against government tyranny, and intended for the jury to have the power and right to nullify in cases of unjust criminal prosecutions.

2 That function of the jury is still essential today to protect against unjust prosecutions.

(AJS, 2007)

Butler, an African-American law professor who served formerly as a D.C. Assistant U.S. Attorney, defends race-based jury nullification as a reaction against his own experience as a federal prosecutor. During his stint as U.S. attorney, Butler quickly learned that black D.C. jurors frequently declined to convict black defendants whom they knew to be guilty of the crimes with which they had been charged. He also discovered that a number of his African-American colleagues in the D.C. Prosecutor s Office quietly hoped that Washington s mayor, Marion Barry, would be acquitted in his 1990 drug possession. Many believed this on grounds that, among all the high-rolling politicians on the Washington scene guilty of similar malfeasance, Barry was targeted for prosecution simply because he was black (Butler, Paul).

After reflecting upon these two experiences, Butler concludes that black communities in America are better off when some nonviolent black lawbreakers remain in the community rather than being shipped off to prison. Consequently, he contends that "the race of a black defendant is sometimes a legally and morally appropriate factor for jurors to consider in reaching a verdict". Because "the decision as to what kind of conduct by African-Americans ought to be punished is better made by African-Americans themselves, based on the costs and benefits to their community, than by the traditional criminal justice process, which is controlled by white lawmakers and white law enforcers." (Butler, Paul)

Butler candidly acknowledges that his "goal is the subversion of American criminal justice, at least as it now exists," but in the form of constructive and carefully targeted civil disobedience, designed to apply pressure to government authorities to consider non-criminal methods of addressing some types of antisocial conduct. In particular, Butler does not advocate jury nullification in cases involving violent offenses, on grounds that the release of such offenders is not in the best interests of the communities, which black jurors represent (Butler, Paul).

The following two cases are examples of raced-based jury nullification:

Case 1: A man helps his terminally ill wife commit suicide. The prosecutor brings criminal charges against him, and the case looks strong. The defendant freely admits he prepared the toxic mix of drugs for his wife, knowing it would kill her. He argues, however, that he acted out of mercy, because his wife was suffering from a terminal illness and no longer wanted to live in pain. The defendant takes the stand in his own defense at trial and, during his testimony, breaks into tears, saying he loved his wife, but saw no way to help her except by hastening her death. The jurors believe the defendant is sincere and, although they agree that he has violated the criminal law, return a verdict of not guilty (Leipold, 1997).

Case 2: A group of men is charged with vandalizing a grocery