In the UK jury nullification came into the spotlight at the beginning of this year when four people who helped topple a statue of a slave trader in Bristol were found not guilty by a jury, even though they admitted doing so and there was video & photo evidence. The jury decided that they had acceptable reasons for their actions. [1]
The reaction from the right wing government and its supporters was barely short of apoplexy, followed by promises to appeal the verdict and change the law to remove this as an option for juries. (So far I don't believe any such legal changes have been made.)
Jury nullification is one of the strengths of the jury system, allowing a representation of the public decide if an act was truly criminal, and should be protected, otherwise it's just 12 people following a decision tree and no better than trial by judge.
The reaction from the right wing government and its supporters was barely short of apoplexy, followed by promises to appeal the verdict and change the law to remove this as an option for juries. (So far I don't believe any such legal changes have been made.)
Jury nullification is one of the strengths of the jury system, allowing a representation of the public decide if an act was truly criminal, and should be protected, otherwise it's just 12 people following a decision tree and no better than trial by judge.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared...