Passage A
Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. …
First, we do not know how the power is used. Because juries are not required to and typically do not explain their verdicts, it is impossible to say how often nullification occurs. This means that we also do not know how often juries use this power for evil ends rather than for good ones.
Second, juries often have insufficient evidence to make a reasoned nullification decision. Evidence that might inform such a decision, such as a defendant’s past brushes with the law, usually is not admitted at trial because it is irrelevant to the technical question of guilt or innocence.
Third, jurors are not legislators. We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them. The jury is unelected, is unaccountable, and has no obligation to think through the effect an acquittal will have on others.
Reasonable people can disagree on the proper reach of the criminal laws. Nevertheless, the place for them to disagree is in public, where the reasons for revisions of the laws can be scrutinized and debated.
Passage B
Police and prosecutors have discretion to decide which violations of the law to pursue and which to overlook. Even with such discretion, however, these officials can sometimes be overzealous. In such cases, the jury can act as a safety valve and use its own discretion to decide, for example, that a case is too trivial or the circumstances too extenuating for the case to result in a conviction.
When a jury nullifies because it does not believe a law should be applied to a particular defendant, the jury can also be viewed as assisting the legislature. Legislatures create general laws both because they cannot foresee every variation that may arise, and because legislators often have competing views about what should be included in legislation and so must settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed. …
Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful function vis-à-vis the legislature, namely indicating to the legislature that there may be a problem with the law in question.
It may happen that a jury will be persuaded to nullify by factors they should ignore, but such instances of nullification are likely to be uncommon. For a jury to agree to nullify means that the case for nullification must be so compelling that all twelve of the jurors, despite their different backgrounds and perspectives, nevertheless agree that nullification is the appropriate course of action.
Based on what can be inferred from their titles, the relationship between the documents in which one of the following pairs is most analogous to the relationship between passage A and passage B?
“Cameras in the Courtroom: A Perversion of Justice?”
“The Pros and Cons of Televising Courtroom Proceedings”
The second title doesn’t match, because it doesn’t indicate approval of televising courtroom proceedings. So this isn’t analogous to Passage B’s approval of jury nullification.
“Cameras in the Courtroom: Three Central Issues in the Debate”
“The Unexpected Benefits of Permitting Cameras in Court”
This isn’t analogous, because the first title doesn’t indicate disapproval of cameras in the courtroom. So it’s not analogous to Passage A’s disapproval of jury nullification.
“The Inherent Dangers of Permitting Cameras in Court”
“How Televising Courtroom Proceedings Can Assist the Law”
This is most analogous. This is the only answer in which the first title suggests the document argues against cameras in court, and the second title suggests an argument in favor of cameras in court. This matches Passage A’s argument against jury nullification, and Passage B’s argument in favor of it.
"The Troublesome History of Cameras in the Courtroom"
"The Laudable Motives Behind Televised Courtroom Proceedings"
This isn’t analogous, because Passage A doesn’t discuss the history of jury nullification. Passage A presents an argument against the use of jury nullification; this isn’t a recounting of history.
“Why Cameras Should Be Banned from the Courtroom”
“The Inevitability of Televised Courtroom Proceedings”
This isn’t analogous, because Passage B doesn’t argue that jury nullification is inevitable. It argues that jury nullification is sometimes justified. The second title in (E) doesn’t indicate a positive attitude toward courtroom cameras; noting that cameras are “inevitable” merely indicates that they cannot be stopped. Whether they are good is not clear based on the title.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic