Under the legal doctrine of jury nullification, a jury may legitimately acquit a defendant it believes violated a law...

on September 5, 2020

Why is B incorrect?

I was stuck between B & E

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Victoria on September 23, 2020

Hi @aseikhon11,

Happy to help!

We are looking for the answer choice which outlines what the author does in undermining the position put forward by the proponents of the doctrine.

To start, what is the doctrine? It allows jurors to legitimately acquit a defendant who violated a law if they believe that said law is unjust.

Proponents of this doctrine support it because it helps to shield against injustice.

The author contradicts this, concluding that the doctrine of jury nullification may be undesirable because it relies excessively on jurors' objectivity.

Why might the doctrine be undesirable? Because empowering juries to acquit based on their perceptions of unfairness can lead to serious mistakes.

This is directly restated by answer choice (E). The author argues that the application of the doctrine has undesirable consequences (i.e. the likelihood of juries making serious mistakes).

Inconsistent reasoning involves two statements that cannot both be true (i.e. they conflict with one another). The reasoning underlying the proponents' position is not inconsistent because none of their ideas contradict one another. Their position may be a bit naive in relying too heavily on jurors' objectivity, but this is not contradictory or inconsistent reasoning nor does the author claim it is.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.