"The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all." Lysander Spooner
A society without the practice of jury nullification ceases to be a society and instead meanders as a subservient arm of a totalitarian ruling body. I firmly believe it and now no ambiguity exists regarding my view. Myriad arguments may be made for the legitimacy of such a practice within the United States' legal system. Writings of the founders, case law, diaries of the Constitutional Convention, and English common law precedent lend support to its inclusion as standard practice. Many classical liberals and individualists have given support based upon pragmatism and political philosophy. Although I agree with both of these approaches, I find the arguments to be ineffectual when considering mass acceptance. For that purpose, an appeal to personal morality may be more prudent.
Each individual possess an inner moral compass, conscious or unconscious, examined or unexamined. Some may be called more inner than others as often times this morality emulates religious and educational institutions. Regardless of particular circumstance, even the most ostensibly amoral person has this sense. As my weakest assumption in the argument, this compass almost never seeks the law as its pole. The law provides a poor basis for morality given its volatility and transient human founding. Indeed, while the law lends credence or stigma to particular actions, it rarely guides morality itself.
Most people will freely concede this point. From a level as debase as pure arrogance, one will insist their morality to be inner and personal or derived from a higher source. What occurs when it comes time for the individual to serve on a jury and enforce policies not perfectly in line with his morality? Here we arrive at the great contradiction in action. The timeless conflict between principle and perceived duty takes place. The great number cast aside their personhood to faithfully serve as a mere judge of fact (rather than a judge of law). How does this happen?
Peculiarly, the laws of that State become a shield for personal culpability. The herd mind overtakes the individual mind. With the ersatz morality of the government, jurors parry personal convictions. However, despite all the legal verbosity and pompous ceremony of the court, the juror does not escape the implication of his action. It’s essentially obvious and must be pointed out. If one gives a guilty vote, that individual admits himself as an accomplice in all punishment that follows. If you sentence someone to prison, for a crime you believe to be invalid, you cannot hide behind the legal procedures from the judge of your morality. The law is not unjust. The courts are not unjust. You as a person are unjust. You have transformed to the tyrannical monarch oppressing the peasantry. One side of your mouth may not speak guilty as the hypocrite spouts pleas of flawed laws out the other. Actions are non-transferable.
Cells may act in tandem to form an organism. Many bodies amalgamate to form the legal system. Unlike cells though, human beings still admit free choice and action in these circumstances. To view it otherwise requires a fallacy of composition. The judging bodies only exist as a collection of individuals each giving individual fates regarding the defendant on trial. As each person does this, each claims full responsibility for the actions. When acting on a jury, despite being forced to do so, each man judges not only the person on trial, but each man also passes judgment on himself. Errors in assessment may be forgiven. Purposeful abdication of morality cannot be forgiven.
We have trouble with laws because jurors have no shame. They feel a moral immunity when acting on the command of the government. They feel this because they are taught this. They live this because contrary words are never uttered to awaken the good inside them. Individuals may not agree which laws should be nullified, but each should nullify or face the personal consequences of the contrary choice. The charade has perpetuated long enough.
“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame…as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…aware that effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.” Professor de la Paz in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
