Why, a jury is just to determine guilt or innocence.
juries may nullify and make recommendations
Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict"]verdict[/ame] by a trial [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury"]jury[/ame], disagreeing with the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_instruction"]instructions[/ame] by the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge"]judge[/ame] concerning what the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law"]law[/ame] is, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the
evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what the law is or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be, or the legitimacy of a law itself. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "
dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.
Notwithstanding perceived righteous applications of jury nullification, it bears noting that this verdict anomaly can also occur simply as a device to absolve a defendant of culpability. Sympathy, bias or prejudice can influence some jurors to wholly disregard evidence and instruction in favor of a sort of "jury forgiveness."
“ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ”
—[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson"]Thomas Jefferson[/ame], 1789 letter to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine"]Thomas Paine[/ame]
Historical examples include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law"]English law[/ame],
[1] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,
[2] the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,
[3] and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudices"]prejudices[/ame] such as the
race of one of the
parties in the case.
[4]
