Team B 1 Jury Nullification CJA 344 Jury nullification should never take place When it does happen it is meant to send a message to the criminal justice system that they believe the law is incorrect When jury nullification takes place it is the jury taking the law into their own hands and overriding the entire criminal justice system Jury nullification should never have to take place Team B 2 Present are two arguments and periods in which jury nullification exists in its most prominent form In the mid 1900s when the issue of race and equal rights were running rampant throughout the southern states of the United States jury nullification was taking place daily Black citizens may have been charged with crimes that they either did or did not commit in many cases they did not and if they did it was because the laws were unfair When they were set to be on trial the jury would convict them because the entire jury was composed of White citizens who either agreed with the laws or were afraid to oppose them On the opposite end of this period when White citizens were to be on trial for crimes against Black citizens they were immediately found not guilty based largely on the same reasons that the Black citizens were found guilty Another period and area that jury nullification would be taking place would be currently in areas where minority communities feel they are experiencing brutalization and treated unfairly by the police This takes place when a jury is composed of all minority citizens and they refuse to convict a minority from their area because they believe that person was put on trial by a corrupt police force treating him or her unfairly They are inclined to give this person a not guilty verdict based on the mistreatment he or she has endured from those attempting to convict a member of his or her own race rather than work alongside that individual The citizens and the police have become two separate entities in these areas and instead of working alongside one another and for one another they feel they are working against each other On the other end of this issue if a jury is composed of all minorities and are set to place a verdict on a member of the police force they may be inclined to deliver a guilty verdict simply based on the opposite information that the jury would have rendered a not guilty verdict to a member of his or her community Jury nullification takes place when a portion of the community feels they are treated Team B 3 unfairly or are attempting to treat another portion of the community unfairly Jury nullification is a form of bias and discrimination fueled by racism and inequality The Bronx jury is a contemporary example of race based jury nullification The Bronx jury is a jury made up of mainly minorities who refuse to convict minority defendants Keneally 2011 p The reasoning behind Bronx juries is because of the perception that the criminal justice system targets minorities Keneally 2011 Bronx juries are currently expanding to other cities and states with a high population of minorities This phenomenon is explained in a couple of different reasons One reason that these juries are not convicting minorities is to make a statement about how the criminal justice system is racist The other explanation focuses on reasonable doubt Because there are many minorities who have witnessed police misconduct firsthand they believe the defendant may not be allowed a fair trial Many jurors in these areas believe that officers are willing to lie if they can help make a conviction and nullifying the case would keep innocent minorities out of prison According to Marder 1999 The OJ Simpson trial is another example of race based jury nullification This is because members of the jury believed police and the prosecution tampered with evidence and had possible racist motivation As mentioned in the above example jurors are becoming more aware that they may avoid convicting the defendant as long as the judge does not know that nullification was considered before the trial begins Race based nullification is rapidly increasing as jurors are more aware of this decision making power Paul Butler a research professor of law and prior prosecuting attorney believes that all minority non violent offenders should be acquitted of their crimes with the use of jury nullification Nullifying Equities 2000 Butler believes that minorities are convicted based on race and members of the jury can decide a minority s future better than a judge This theory is based on a couple of reasons one is the cost Team B 4 to incarcerate a minor drug offender and the second reason is the outcome from incarceration Butler s theory mentions that drug offenders are sick and need help not a punishment in prison His theory also mentions that members of the jury are considering what is best for the community when they make a decision Criminals who may be a future threat are normally convicted and the non violent offenders are nullified Some reasoning include not using taxpayer dollars to keep a non violent drug offender in prison and protecting a defendant from the stigma one faces after prison There have been many arguments and debate over the issues regarding jury nullification and the fairness and equality surrounding it Racial nullification is far from true justice for those of racial minorities and to the laws created to protect the people of the United States Racial nullification puts forth an impossibility to protect anyone involved in a trial if the evidence in that trial is from a non minority individual as opposed to a minority one The position on this side stands to be against jury nullification because of the inequality and bias that is displayed An example of jury nullification that displays racial bias is the 1991 OJ Simpson case in which a Black man was set free by a black jury due to the feelings of injustice on black individuals at the same time Is this true justice Two thoughts come to mind when speaking of jury nullification and racial minorities Because all courts need to recognize that racial bias is inappropriate concerning the trail of another human being and the second because a precedent needs to be set forth concerning the influence of the court and justice should outweigh the feelings of bias and prejudice and no matter the color of the one standing trial he or she should serve all of the time given for the crime that he or she committed It is fair to say that those members of the court who are