In theory, the jury trial process implemented by many republics serves two functions: 1.) to judge the guilt or innocence of individuals accused of committing crimes, and 2.) to set aside unjust or unconstitutional laws. Point (2) is known as "jury nullification." Lately, though, judges in some countries are thwarting the purpose of the jury trial system by committing jury tampering in failing to instruct jurors of their constitutional duty, or worse, forbidding them from judging the constitutionality of the law in their verdict. This facet of the jury trial process is evidenced by the following quotations by US Supreme Court judges and other statesmen: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."--Thomas Jefferson "Conscience is a higher source of authority than obedience to the law."--Judges at Nuremberg "The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."--Albert Einstein "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."--Louis D. Brandeis "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."--U.S. v. Dougherty "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the facts in controversy."--John Jay, 1789, first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court "For more than six hundred years--that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of such laws."--Lysander Spooner, 1852 "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that was once the citizen's safeguard of liberty."-- 2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."--Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137 [1803]) "If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal case being tried is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural, inalienable, or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all--for no one is bound to obey an unjust law...the law itself is on trial, quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."--Harlan F. Stone, former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court "It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."--John Adams, 1771 "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny."--Edmund Burke If you want to learn more, visit the Web site of the Fully Informed Juries Association: http://www.fija.org Alanlit96: By my research, my answer is objective and correct. From the quotations by American founders and judges, I gave the true and complete purpose of a jury trial system: both to judge the accused AND to hold a government to the tenents of its constitution. YOU are the one furthering a political agenda and abusing the ratings system.

jury nullification Function: noun : the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact NOTE: Jury nullification is most likely to occur when a jury is sympathetic toward a defendant or regards the law under which the defendant is charged with disfavor. Except for a statutory requirement to the contrary, a jury does not have to be instructed on the possibility of jury nullification.

It is, as previously stated, a process by which a jury renders a decision based upon factors other than the law to which they have been instructed. Of course, it happens, and there is some historical basis for it. But the prior answer requires a cautionary note. There is a vast difference between having some degree of tolerance for a jury expressing its collective conscience by refusing to apply the jury instructions literally in reaching a particular verdict and in advocating that a jury be instructed on one hand, "here is the law", but also being told, "by the way, you don't have to pay any attention to what the law is if you want to something different". If the latter sounds ridiculous to you, you have grasped the problem with formal jury nullification. If it sounds like it would cause chaos in the legal system, you are also correct. The extension of the doctrine beyond reasonable bounds is essentially a political issue. Nullification has been seized upon by groups who wish to be free of government intrusion (more free than most civil libertarians, hell even libertarians in general, would think necessary) as a means of furthering their agenda. In other words, they see nullificaiton as a way to say that they will not be subjected to laws with which they disagree. Once again, we are on ground that is very dangerous. Would it have been better if those operating within the Nazi regime refused to give the force of law to Hitler's policies and programs. Of course. Was civil disobedience necessary in various times of American history to secure a change in unjust laws? Of course. But those examples are far different than saying that a criminal defendant should be convicted or acquitted based upon a person's own views of what the laws should be, or--even more troubling--in furtherance of a theory that government does not even have the authority to make laws that protect society and insist that all citizens abide thereby.