Jury Nullification Essay

Introduction

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the rule of law as “the authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; the principle whereby all members of a society, including those in government, are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.” This formal definition commonly references three criteria's: individuals and the collective society are governed by rules that are impartial and equal for everyone, rules are established through a limited government that maintains its own functions within the confines of the same rules, and that the compliance with such rules is rooted in a legal and political culture. The core concept behind

the rule of law is that it creates ideal characteristics that all statute law should seek to attain. It aims to neutralize universal rules.
This paper will explain the historical evolution of the rule of law, as well as its transformation due to a contemporary application in western society. The historical analysis of the rule of law is important for it prompts research towards the formal correctness in which the law is applied. The rule of law prescribed the manner in which the government should act, and the jury system serves as an important check on authority. There must be a limit imposed on legal power, otherwise the government may results in a dictatorship.

Historical Analysis
The formulation of the rule of law is not unambiguous. The origin of the concept of the rule of law can be traced back to ancient greek philosophy. Philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle suggested that judges should be governed by the rules of the law, rather than being left to use their own discretion. Judges should be bound by statutory provisions, as well as by stare decisis, which is the obligation to respect precedent cases. Aristotle separates the rule of law from personal discretion to do justice. In Politics, Aristotle states that “we do not permit a man to rule, but the law.” Aristotle argues that due to inevitable corruption among rulers, laws should be sovereign. Judges needed to act fairly and lawfully in order to provide a balance of authority.
Greek and Christian philosophers different in views concerning the supreme source of law. For Greeks, law originated from a natural state, and was influenced by norms and customs of the time. For Christians, law originated from God. The power to rule was delegated directly from God, and the idea of a King as a supreme ruler was seen as contrary to natural law.
The 16th and 17th century gave rise to governmental powers. There was a transition of power from one sovereign ruler, the king, to a designated body, the government. The legislative function of government posed a threat to the rule of law. This lead to the creation of two types of law: substantive rule of law, and procedural rule of law. Substantive rule of law is defined as being ruled according to a precise set of laws. Procedural rule of law is defined as being ruled in accordance with laws generated by a legislative process.
19th century German customary law saw the rise of the concept of Rechtsstaat, which translates to ‘ruled by law’. It is unconcerned with the content of the law, only with the proper administration of the law. It founded upon the principle of the right to resistance, in which “the kind and his people both stood under a mutual obligation to preserve the law from infringement or corruption and in some cases when the king clearly failed to do his duty we find his subjects taking matters into their own hands and deposing him.” The ruler and the ruled were both bound to the rule of law.
The Magna Carta is one of the first fundamental blueprint for the establishment of the rule of law, due process, and the creation of the right to a trial by jury. It was signed by England’s King John in 1215. It was established by landowners that sought freedom from tyranny, through the assertion that no one would be put above the law, including the king. It symbolizes the protection of citizens against the power and authority of the king. No person, is above the law, and all persons will be protected from the irrational exercise of authoritative powers. Barons seeking protection against the arbitrary power of King John wanted to be tried solely by judgement, and not by a jury of their peers. This led to the formation of the King’s judges. If the King were to issue any form of complaint against the Barons, they were able to tried by their peers, and not judges appointed by the kind. The King’s judges were used to prevent “arbitrary arrests to which they had been subjected by an arbitrary king.” During this period, a jury was used in order to determine the facts of the trial, and the judge determined the law. The jury was only permitted to render a verdict of not guilty.
Trial by Jury
In the16th and 17th century, British common law observed and analyzed the pragmatic effect of the court system. Judges were perceived as an enforcement mechanism for the application of conventional customs of the land. The jury system, likewise with the rule of law, is concerned with the promotion and protection of liberty. The purpose of a jury system is to “guard against the exercise of arbitrary power - to make available the common sense judgement of the community as a hedge against [arbitrary state action].” It is a check and balance against arbitrary actions by the State, and protects individual autonomy. The jury system conflicts with the rule of law, where it is granted the ability to disregard law. It attempts to minimize arbitrary state actions, for the intent of the protection of individual liberty. The rule of law prescribed the manner in which the government should act, and the jury system serves as a check on this authority.
In the common law system, legislation and the rule of law is enforced by courts. The legal system endorses the rule of law because it wishes to preserve and endorse autonomy and liberty. The rule of law promotes democracy, autonomy and the liberty to make choices. In England, there is no law that is superior to the statues adopted by the Parliament. Administrative powers are bound strictly by law, and the purpose of judicial review is to ensure lawfulness in accordance to statuary provisions. In contemporary western society, both legislative and administrative actions are subject to the rule of law.
Governments are not able to hold the conscience of a jury. When a jury rules that a law is unjust, or has been unjustly applied, they are able to dismiss the case through declaring a verdict of not guilty. This exercise of jury nullification is fundamental, for it provides a check on the arbitrary powers of government, through granting jurors the power to independently come to a decision of guilty or not guilty based on upon the facts of the case. The jury system is not aimed to establish whether an act was within the bounds of the law or not, but rather if the accused is guilty of their proposed wrongdoing.
Due Process
Due process is defined as “a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual.” It originated in English Common Law, and was constitutionally enforced within article 39 of the Magna Carta. It states that “no free man shall be seized, or imprisoned […] except by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.” When an accused individual is convicted based upon unlawfully obtained evidence, it is ruled that the accused’s liberty has been deprived of without the due process of law. ADD MORE?

Jury Nullification
The act of nullification is defined as “to render [something] of no value, use, or efficacy; to reduce to nothing, to cancel out.” Jury nullification occurs when a jury refuses to apply the applicable law to a given circumstance.

Jurors allow their verdict to be influenced by normative considerations, such as what the jury perceives the law ought to be, rather than the considerations of what the law is. Jury nullifications prompts the execution of interpretation, for jurors establish their meaning of the text, as well as their position on the intentions and purposes behind it’s enactment. This is problematic, for a jury may inaccurately interpret the meaning and application of a text. Jury nullification contradicts the rule of law, for through the reliance upon sentimental emotions, there is a disregard for logic and consistency through the ability to nullify legal

statues.
Jury nullification is utilized in civil and criminal law. When a jury chooses to nullify the law and render their own decision based on their own textual interoperation of the relevant law, their decision is immutable. Jury nullification can then be redefined in relevance to criminal law, as “a jury’s ability to acquit a criminal defendant despite finding facts that leave no reasonable doubt about violation of a criminal statute.”
Jury nullification can only result in a verdict of not guilty. This does not pose a threat to the rule of law’s core concept of the promotion of liberty. Rather, nullification suppresses the rule of law in another manner, for it “exalts the goal of particularized justice above the ideal rule of law. […] A central theme in our constitutional system is that no [person] is above the law and all are equally accountable to it. The people are sovereign, but theY exercise the sovereignty through government rather than juries.” It directly conflicts with the obligation that all persons be subject to the authority of the law.
Contemporary Application
The 19th century further encouraged the development and implementation of the rule of law. The contemporary western jury system offers little protection to an accused person. The jury relies upon the guiding suggestions of the judge, who presents the state. They are unable to determine their own moral guidelines, for the jury is influences by the recommendations of the reining authority, the judge. They are intended to be a check on authority. Even though the process of jury selection virtually eliminates the possibility of the government packing a jury, the selected jurors are not able to exercise their own judgement.
The rule of law does not bestow any form of jurisdiction. At best, it aids in the interpretation of legislation. In Wells v. Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to reach a verdict on whether a senior civil servant whose employment was terminated by the government, was entitled to a severance pay after the government that employed him dismissed his position. In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, Justice Major held that the civil servant was entitled to a severance pay due to the fact that the government had specifically taken away his right to one. This contradicts the rule of law, for “in a nation governed by the rule of law, we assume that the government will honour its obligations unless it explicitly exercises its power not to. In the absence of a clear express intent to abrogate rights and obligations - rights to the highest importance to the individual - those rights remain in force.” The government of Canada had the legal capacity to deny the civil servant the right to a severance pay. This case demonstrates the relevant function of the rule of law in contemporary society. There was an established relationship between the government and its citizens, and even though the government was able to deny the severance pay to the civil servant, they did not, because his contract did not state that the respondent was not entitled to the severance pay.
With the historical analysis of the origins of the rule of law, to its contemporary application in present western society, the advantages and disadvantages must also be established within this contemporary western application.

Trial by jury is perceived as a fair and unbiased manner to determine guilt or innocence of an accused. There are numerous drawbacks to a trial by jury. Jurors have little to no training in the matters of the law, they are only required to know the facts of the case. Judges guide the juries, and aid them in deterring which facts are admissible or inadmissible. Through this lack of legal knowledge, jurors are easily persuade by either side of the opposition. They are not able to use their own discretion, for they are influenced by the prosecution and defendants, as well as the judge. Jurors are also likely to follow the majority verdict, rather than coming to an independent verdict that may extend the duration of the trial.

Regardless of these drawbacks, trial by jury is still a fair and effective way to promote and protect individual liberties. Juries are an important check on authority, for without their symbolic position within the judicial system, there would be no power to counteract that of authoritative figures, such as judges and the government at large. The jurors share common societal values. It allows for individuals to participate in the legal system. Trial by jury is democratic, in the sense that it is representative of the

community.
Conclusion
The rule of law requires that government systems obey fundamental constraint, but ultimately, sovereignty resides within the individual. Individuals are a symbolic check of authority to arbitrary powers, and ultimately agains the tyranny of government. Jurors are selected independently of the government, to ensure that there are no biases and undue influences that stem from the origins of power. They also represent the collective interests and morals of the community. Through trials by jury, individuals are able to influence the judicial system with the norms of society. This is why the definition of the rule of law as subject to the specific purposes of different legal systems. A formal definition will not resolve this issue, for the rule of law places too much emphasis on the legal establishment of set criterion, and in turn is not contextually analyzed. Trial by jury is a check on authority to prevent tyranny, and also preserves and promotes individual liberties.