Promises Perverse decisions are tantamount to re-writing the law, and juries are breaking their promise Brooks 04 summarizes Thom, prof of law and @ of Jury Res Publica 10, gov’t Durham, “A Defence Nullification,” 2004, [, , ] on occasion, One major problem for critics of jury trials is the fact that, juries decide cases differently from the way professional judges happens, juries are effectively verdicts’. would have done, rendering so-called Critics argue that when this ‘perverse rewriting the law, something neither juries nor judges should do.70 For example, Judge R. J. O’Hanlon one of the merits of the jury system that a jury can bring about says that: it is often put forward as changes in the law of the land by refusing to enforce laws which appear to them to be unjust or oppressive in some way . What this means in reality is that the jury, having … taken an oath that they will verdicts give according to the have broken their ‘true evidence’ oath by refusing to give effect to the law of the land. They have usurped the role of parliament which is entrusted by the people with the task of making laws which are in conformity with the will of the people. However pardonable such action on the part of the jury may be in defiance of an it is indefensible in a modern democracy where fundamental rights oppressive and autocratic regime, and freedoms are protected by the country’s constitution.7
Promises Perverse decisions are tantamount to re-writing the law, and juries are breaking their promise Brooks 04 summarizes Thom, prof of law and gov’t @ Durham, “A Defence of Jury Nullification,” Res Publica 10, 2004, [, , ] One major problem for critics of jury trials is the fact that, on occasion, juries decide cases differently from the way professional judges would have done, rendering so-called ‘perverse verdicts’. Critics argue that when this happens, juries are effectively rewriting the law, something neither juries nor judges should do.70 For example, Judge R. J. O’Hanlon says that: it is often put forward as one of the merits of the jury system that a jury can bring about changes in the law of the land by refusing to enforce laws which appear to them to be unjust or oppressive in some way … . What this means in reality is that the jury, having taken an oath that they will ‘true verdicts give according to the evidence’ have broken their oath by refusing to give effect to the law of the land. They have usurped the role of parliament which is entrusted by the people with the task of making laws which are in conformity with the will of the people. However pardonable such action on the part of the jury may be in defiance of an oppressive and autocratic regime, it is indefensible in a modern democracy where fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by the country’s constitution.7
Premier-Debate-Brief-ND15.docx