Op-ed: Jury Nullification? Here’s why it has become a problem

It has recently come to light that several leftist groups around the country are offering training programs on how to lie to get on juries and subvert the justice system.

Big shocker, I know.

Here's a training video from Freedom Trainers to show you what that looks like:

In short, they're making the case that potential jurors should lie about their intentions to review the facts objectively, according to the law, and vote for socialist justice over real justice.

Not the Bee has covered several of stories over the years that seem to fit the mold.

Here are just a few:

The list could go on and on, but the most famous example was the Derek Chauvin trial after the death of George Floyd, in which one juror lied to get on the jury. He served on the panel after attending a George Floyd protest where he wore a "get your knee off our necks" shirt.

But before conservatives jump on their high horses and shout "shame on you," consider that there have been a bunch of calls for jury nullifications in cases involving the other side.

Here are just a few:

So what do we do with all that?

Let me start by saying that jury nullification is actually an important part of history and in some ways a fourth check and balance on our government: the people's check as it were.

In order to convict someone of a crime, the three major parts of government must work in tandem: the legislature passes laws that someone breaks, the executive enforces those laws, and the judicial ensures those laws are interpreted and applied correctly in trial. But the founding fathers left the ultimate check on that conviction in the hands of the people: 12 peers.

In fact, some of our constitutional rights were included in part due to jury nullification.

For example, William Penn's First Frame of Government (1682), which formed the basis of the first amendment, was written because of Penn's own jury trial in 1670.

He and William Mead were arrested for preaching in Gracechurch in violation of the Conventicle Act, which restricted religious assemblies of five or more people not associated with the Church of England. The jury reached a "not guilty" verdict despite the law, and the judge was so mad, he had the whole panel arrested and imprisoned.

Their imprisonment was overturned on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, and after the whole lot were released, Penn fled to America and religious freedom.

But using jury nullification to let a man of God out of jail for preaching in a church is a lot different than letting a murderer, child predator, violent criminal, or even a white-collar criminal off because of their cultural heritage, skin color, or political persuasion.

The trouble with jury nullification today is that "voting your conscience" requires having a conscience, and getting one of those requires God's intervention.

Otherwise, we have little more than our deceitful, corrupted hearts to guide our paths (Jeremiah 17:9).

And if juries are being guided by nothing but their godless hearts, the people's check becomes little more than lawlessness.

And lawlessness leads to ever more horrible things:

In the end, a return to truth, justice, and the American way isn't going to come in the form of laws and regulations (those are just reflections of the people of a nation after all).

What the justice system needs is national repentance and a return to faith in Jesus.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Not the Bee or any of its affiliates.