As a juror, your duty is to . . .

[no1_vern]

The question is, As a juror, your duty is to . . .
to uphold the law, OR ensure justice is done?

Judge tosses jury nullification case | Reuters
Jury nullification allows jurors to acquit someone of criminal charges - even if they're technically guilty - because they don't think they deserve to be punished.

"Juries were instituted to protect citizens from the tyranny of government," said one pamphlet, submitted by the defense as part of a brief. "It is not the duty of the jury to uphold the law. It is the jury's duty to see that justice is done."

I think the whole purpose of the justice system is to see that justice is done, not just to adhere to written laws. For the most part, the best justice that can be found is from our written laws, but there are times when what is written doesnt fit the crime.

As a juror, your duty is to . . .
to uphold the law, OR ensure justice is done?

[RicheemxX]

I always thought the legal system was in place to prevent just that type of scenario, people handing out their own brand of justice. I think the jury is there to weight the evidence as it's presented and work within the confines of the law. Given that I think the law should be mailable enough allow some leeway but you certainly shouldn't be able to completely ignore the law because you don't like it or because you don't think its right to convict said defendant.

At the same time you shouldn't be able to convict someone just because you think they are a bad person or because you think he looks guilty.

[pickel]

Profile the Prosecutor and the Defense atty, go for the one you like the BEST !!!!! J/K

I'm served on numerous juries , here, in Hinds Co. And have seen the performance of the lawyers severely lacking, and sometimes, bad enough to lose the case. I listen to the evidence and make an evaluation in a cold, sober way. Lets the facts speak. Then make my call, whether popular or not.

[tony_j15]

Law is enevitably a failed, human institution that cannot cope with the plethora of situations that will arise. That's not to say we shouldn't try. But the "idea" of laws and the "jist" are more important than the technical wording. To say that we should "always uphold the law" is to imply that the law is the ultimate moral authority and that everything should be based on its precepts, raising its status to that of religion. What we know, however, is that laws are often flawed, or even wrong, such as laws in the US up through the 60's that promoted racial segregation.
Promoting and upholding justice is the better way forward. Of course, this is a lot more murky and the idea of having no law at all is frightening to most people and it isn't efficient. So having laws/guidelines are important to help us understand the needs of others and prohibit certain behaviors.

[de_day]

I think that the justice system is flawed .. but many of you do too.. such as the 3 strikes laws.. and mandatory sentencing laws.. and hate crime laws... all of these are not just.. They don't take into account the circumstances ...

[Chuckiechan]

You listen to all the arguments, see the evidence, and then determine whether or not the person is guilty of the crime they are charged with.

You do not go "freelancing". The DA charges, you deliberate.

[Epidemic]

I don't know if this is the best example but I am going with it.

you are in a bar and someone shoves you. You shove back and the person ends up stumbling, hits their head and dies. You are brought up on charges of manslaughter and the DA makes the legal case that you caused this persons death. I can see where I might find that you do not deserve a penalty for your actions and I might decide to nullify.

some guy breaks into my your house and pulls a knife on your kid. You manage to get the upper hand in the situation and you empty 3 clips into him after he is on the ground.

I am going to let you off on that one as well. Even though you may have gone a little overboard after he was incapacitated.

I believe in the letter of the law until I feel it does not apply. Because there is no reason to write laws so finely as to take into account every possibility.