Jurry Nullification (Essay Sample)

Jury Nullification
Student’s Name
Institution
Jury Nullification
Introduction
Jury nullification involves allowing a juror to reinstate a non-guilty verdict upon becoming convinced that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt guilty of the crime he or she committed. The term nullification is expressly misleading as it is taken as a nullification of the law. However, this is not true. According to the 14th Amendment, every person in the United States of America is entitled to equal protection and due process in the face of the laws, and this has been extended to mean that individuals charged with a crime are afforded a jury of his or her peers. The ethnicity-based jury nullification has a limitation as it does not tell exactly what to do when the person responsible for crime is white and the casualty is black.
Influences of Ethnicity on Courtroom Proceedings and Judicial Practices
In our modern society, ethnicity influences the judicial practices and courtroom proceeding as established by the research that was conducted by The Sentencing Project. Additionally, ethnicity has an effect on other places we live. It has been noted that the poverty-stricken regions has a high probability of experiencing much more elevated crimes than the regions that have constant supply of fruitful employment and wealth. Therefore, the contentious issues of the class and race (ethnicity) have effects on the possibility of engagement with criminal justice treatment and system within the system of justice. Therefore, the issue of racial tension will always be present within the court system and judicial practices as long as society maintains it in existence. However, one means of stamping it is by training and educating all the stakeholders of the criminal justice career. This is not an easy process, nonetheless. Frequently, most of the verdicts are based on the ethnicity or race of the people they belong to. A good example of the ethnicity-based verdict is the case of 9/11 episode. In this case, the suspects of Islamic ethnicity were despised and regarded as terrorists by American society because of the nature of the attacks that happened on that day. Batson v. Kentucky case of 1986 is another example of a case that was based on ethnicity. In the case, the courts rule a decision that state does not guarantee an African-American defendant (black) an equal protection right, as provided by the 14th Amendments, when it places on trial in front of a jury from which his ethnicity members have been tenaciously excluded (Peffley & Hurwitz, 2010).
Therefore, it can be deduced that people are more afraid of what they do not understand, but are reluctant to educate themselves when it comes to the ethnicity difference. It is imperative for the professionals in the criminal justice career to act in a manner that is fair and professional. The issue of the ethnicity can be curbed through supervision, training, and everyday interaction between people of varied ethnicity. However, it is sad to note that most of the people in modern American society are characterized by the stereotyping people due their difference in color, region, language, and practices than they do (Peffley & Hurwitz, 2010).
Arguments For and Against Ethnicity-Based Jury Nullification
Ethnicity-based jury nullification has been an outcry from true justice especially for the minority people and the laws encoded to protect people. This type of jury nullification limits the law from being applied to protect the plaintiff, when the weight on the evidence if a majority race against marginalized ones. The prevailing arguments based on the jury nullification concerning its equality and upstanding views of the truth and justice and the United States Constitution for all that it represents. However, it is unclear to what is meant by the term true fairness. For example, in the case of the 1991 and OJ Simpson trial, a black jury set free a Blackman because of the sensation of injustice concerning another case that was decided against the blacks at those times. In such a case, there is no representation of true justice, but instead it was fully based on the feelings and emotions of despair since people have a feeling that minorities should be given an equal shake before the court. However, ethnicity-based jury nullification can be presented in two arguments. Either there should be a need for a precedence established based on the influence that the justice system is suppose to outweigh any sensations for prejudice, and people should serve the time for their crimes. Or the courts will establish that there should be no prejudices in the courtroom, and that the jury or jurors requires being colorblind. Therefore, whether the jury of nullification is in favor of a person or not, democracy should take precedent (Estrich, 1998).
George Zimmerman Case
Several questions have been asked about George Zimmerman’s case whether it was just and reasonable. Some people also argue that the ruling of the case could have been different if it was to be ruled in another country like Ohio. Additionally, a number of studies have been done to discuss the rulings. To justify his innocence, George Zimmerman argued that he shot Trayvon to defend his life but many studies on people opinions have ignored the jury instructions were unfair and gave George unreasonable advantages. I also agree that the ruling was not just. The reason behind my decision is that both Trayvon and George risked their lives in trying to defend themselves. It is clear that George was trying to defend his life from the actions of the young Tryvon but unfortunately, by trying to defend himself, he also posed danger to the young boy’s life in which he was also supposed to respond by defending himself but unluckily he lost his life before (Yancy & Jones, 2013).
<...