Equality of Justice, and Jury Nullification
September 12, 2010
* Under what circumstances does the author believe jurors should vote according to conscience rather than law? Does the Supreme Court approve or disapprove of this practice? Why? The author believes that under the circumstances of jury nullification is when the jurors should vote according to conscience rather than the instructions given by the judge, the law and the facts of the case. The author believes that in the case where black jurors have the right to free a black defendant who they believe is guilty as charged. The Supreme Court has made it official that they do not approve of jury nullification. But it also has stated that the Supreme Court do not have any power to stop anyone from engaging in this behavior (Paul Butler, 2001). . There is a major discrepancy of whom, what, and when then practice is appropriate. * According to the author, what is the correct forum in which people should disagree with the law? Why does he believe the courtroom is not the place for disagreement? According to the author of this passage the correct forum for people to disagree with the law is in public. This is because this is where the expansions and contractions of the law can be talked about and debated, as well as broken down by those who will be affected by the decision that is reached. He does not believe that the courtroom is the place for disagreement because there is no sympathy for a criminal in a courtroom as well as facts that are left out of the case are never presented because these are technical things that do not render a decision in whether the offender is innocent or guilty.
* How do the statistics David Cole presents support his argument that the criminal justice system is biased against minority citizens? Do you think these statistics are accurate? What do you think they reveal about the criminal justice system? The statistics that the author...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document