Roxanne Daniel

Daniel 1

Professor Sydow
ENC 1101
9 December, 2015

The Contribution of Jury Nullification to Maintaining Democracy

The first instance of an argument for jury nullification was in 1694. A jury in England
acquitted John Lilburne, despite the fact that he incited a rebellion against the Cromwell regime.
The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of Lilburne's trial: "His contention that
the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded,
and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as
to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the
jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable,
blasphemous heresy.'" This case was a monumental example of the power a jury has in the
courtroom as a result of having the ability to nullify. The purpose of the jury itself is to look at
the evidence of a case presented, weigh that evidence against the laws explained to them by the
judge, and declare their verdict: guilty or not guilty. Jury nullification happens when the law is
perceived as unjust with regards to the evidence presented, leading the jury to reach a result
contrary to what that evidence may suggest (Conaway 393). Despite the possibility to be
misused, jury nullification is an essential part of democratic society.

Daniel 2

The purpose of a democracy is to achieve justice and to ensure a voice for the people,
among other agendas (Kultgen xxi). The key here is that democracy is a means of achieving
justice, and that the core component of a democracy is it's people. Jury nullification is quite
possibly the best example of a necessary ability of the people in order for a democracy to
function properly. Arguments against jury nullification are neglecting this fact by advocating for
a limitation in the power of the people. By linking justice to democracy, it can be shown that
without jury nullification, democracy would be unjust. The esteemed activist and historian
Howard Zinn wrote, "To urge the right of citizens to disobey unjust laws...is of the very essence
of democracy." Without outlets such as jury nullification within the government for the peoples
voice to be heard, the government is not a democracy, as this constitutes a judicial system where
the people do not have a right to object to laws they deem unjust. This would be the mark of
totalitarianism: a political system where the state's power is limitless and the people's lives are
regulated in every way that is feasible.
Jury nullification allows the people to do away with authoritarian and formalist
conceptions of the law and instead reinterpret relationships the people have with the law as
adaptive to the lived experiences of the modern people. This conception is democratic and makes
the system more stable. Progressivism plays a huge role in the advancement of a democracy and
is how we adapt our laws as we advance as a culture. Jury nullification plays a huge role in
progressivism in the law and allows for the people to have an outlet of change at their fingertips.

Daniel 3

Attorneys Michael R. McCurdy and Jason Robinson affirm this by writing, "The body of law is
fluid, literally changing on a daily basis as new cases cause judges to reconsider and affirm or
revise prior opinion." It is evident that jury nullification is an essential attribution to the constant
change in the law as we progress as a people. Democracy is one of the few political systems that
allows for the government to change with the people, not vice versa. It is because of outlets such
as jury nullification that democracy can exist.
Democracy is a ideal developed nations hold close to heart, and must uphold in order to
remain at a developed position. One of the most common ways democracy can fall is to tyranny,
and jury nullification upholds democracy by explicitly putting a break on any despotic or
tyrannical application of the law. What makes tyranny feared is the way in which it can be
applied in many aspects other than the obvious power-grabbing dictator. The subtle, equally
oppressive tyranny of a dominant ideology or culture being enforced in the justice system is one
of the main ways tyranny can disrupt the principles of democracy and go unnoticed. Jury
nullification is essential in stopping this kind of injustice from happening within the justice
system. It calls out dominant ideologies by expressing the concerns of the people and voicing
dissent for the law at question.
Jury nullification ensures democracy at the core of its existence. Since 1694, jury
nullification has been used to rebel against oppressive regimes, do away with victimless crimes,
and restore rights. Its purpose, ever since the first instance of its usage, is to create an outlet

Daniel 4

where the people can voice their opinions on the law and truly make a change. In every instance
of jury nullification, the law is ignored in order to restore what the people believe is truly just or
to apply the law in the way in which the people believe it should be applied. It can be concluded
that, theoretically and practically, jury nullification is a just outlet for the people's voice to be
heard. Jury nullification is essential to democracy in relation to democratic ideals and principles,
and remains a necessary component.

Word Count: 1003

Works Cited
Bernstein, Eduard. Sozialismus Und Demokratie in Der Grossen Englischen Revolution.
Stuttgart: J.H.W. Dietz Nachfolger, 1908. Print.
Conaway, Teresa L, et. al. Jury Nullification: A Selective Annotated Bibliography.

Daniel 5

39 Val. U. L. Rev. 393 (2004).

Zinn, Howard. Disobedience and democracy: Nine fallacies on law and order. Vol. 4. South
End Press, 1968.
Kultgen, John H., and Mary Lenzi. Problems for Democracy. Vol. 181. Rodopi, 2006.
McCurdy, Michael, and Jason Robinson. "Tort Law in the United States."Tort Law in
the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015.

Daniel 6