Jury Nullification and the Jena Six

For a long time I’ve believed that jury nullification is a way to provide justice for underrepresented groups in the United States. One of the reasons I started The Civil Rights Action Corp. is because groups like the NAACP, for instance, would complain about sentencing disparities between races but not champion nullification to as a way fill in the gap. Although it would directly accomplish their stated goals these groups refused to provide this information to their members. I viewed this omission then and still do as close to immoral.

Maybe it shouldn’t be too surprising. Nullification gives power to the citizens. An individual actually has a say in the laws of the society they wish to live in. The people who hold authority, if they are politicians or non-profits, aren’t eager to give that up.

The Jena Six have again brought this topic to the mainstream. This is from US News!:

At the time, many questioned whether the former football great could get a fair trial with the mélange of wealth, race, celebrity, obsessive love, and domestic violence all involved in the case. New debates sprang up on racism, as detailed in this article, where academics and social critics questioned how much white racism is responsible for the disparity in income and education between blacks and whites.

Opinion writer John Leo discussed the trend of "race-based jury nullification," where black jurors would acquit blacks on trial, even if there was overwhelming evidence against them, as a way to remedy the imbalance.