For the sake of clarification in this debate, I would like to define the following term from Wex Legal Dictionary: Jury Nullification: A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.
Also I would like to define the term ought from Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
Ought: Used to express obligation, or natural expectation
My value for this debate is individual rights because it is a major part …show more content…
His 4 year old daughter was playing outside in her own back yard while a vicious dog mercilessly mauled her. The father was met with screaming and immediately rushed outside to help. It would seem that it would be a viable option to kill the beast, so that’s what he did. After that, he then was accused of animal cruelty. Although it technically was animal cruelty, who in their right mind would simply let a ferocious dog feast on their own daughter, their own flesh and blood, instead of doing something about it, simply based on the fact that they could be tried for it. Was he expected to not help his daughter? The attack was so bad that his daughter was taken to the Intensive Care Unit for …show more content…
Let’s say that the defendant is tried for the assault and murder of another person. In this situation, let’s say that the murder would get them 20 years in prison and the assault would get them 10 years in prison. But say the jurors don’t believe there is a good enough evidence that the assault was committed but legally, it was. They could still find the defendant guilty of murder and acquit the defendant of the assault charges. It does not make sense to just pile on unnecessary charges to someone who didn’t commit all of the