You must log in or register to comment.
My familiarity with UK law is low, I wasn’t aware there was a similar concept to jury nullification.
My knowledge is probably even lower, but I do recall hearing that most of the US law is just copied from UK law as of the 1700’s, with some divergence since then.
That’s not per se inaccurate. There would have been relatively little cultural divergence at that point, so large scale “take what you like and leave the rest” would have been reasonable.
Wouldn’t want to copy and paste their laws now (see “Safety of Rwanda” bill under the prior PM), and we made the right decision from the start to dispose of honours with titles altogether.
Not, of course, that we’ve banished the aristocracy, or even the generally well-off, but can you imagine an effusive Sir ($FalconRocketGuy)?
From what I’ve seen and read, the judiciary system is much more opposed to it here in the UK, judges have more ways to bully jurors, but if a jury makes a decision and only explains it by saying that they’ve complied with the judge’s instructions, there isn’t much the judge can do.
My understanding in the US (generally, given all our various types of jurisdictions) is that the concept cannot be discussed by a jury/juror, at risk of a mistrial.
Considering how many ancient laws are still on the books but “generally understood” to be not enforced, and how many rabid DAs we have, in some cases nullification is the best shot at a fair trial.
Appeals are useful, but take significant time and money. So much simpler to have the jury come to an understanding that the law is ridiculous on its face and from a bygone era.
The UK variant on a Constitution has always intrigued me, being ~unwritten, but I’ve never had the time and energy to delve too deeply into the underlying ideas.
