medium · LSAT Reading Comprehension
Passage A: Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict despite believing the defendant broke the law, usually because the jury believes the law itself is unjust. This practice is a crucial safeguard for liberty, allowing ordinary citizens to act as the final check on government overreach. Historically, nullification has protected individuals from oppressive laws and ensured that legal outcomes reflect the evolving moral standards of the community. It is the ultimate expression of popular sovereignty within the courtroom, ensuring that the law cannot be enforced without the consent of the governed.
Passage B: The integrity of the judicial system depends on the rule of law, which requires that cases be decided based on established statutes rather than the subjective whims of twelve individuals. When juries nullify, they subvert the democratic process by effectively repealing laws passed by elected representatives. This creates a dangerous lack of predictability and allows for inconsistent application of justice based on local prejudices. While proponents claim it protects liberty, nullification more often undermines the very foundation of a fair society by placing individuals above the law and inviting chaos into the legal process.
The author of Passage B would be most likely to respond to the claim in Passage A regarding nullification as a safeguard by arguing that:
- What looks like a protection of liberty in fact endangers it, since substituting jurors' subjective verdicts for the stable rule of law breeds unpredictability.
- The democratic process has grown so deeply corrupt that only unelected juries, and never elected legislators, can now be trusted to enact legitimate law.
- Nullification is constitutionally permissible only in the narrow class of cases in which the accused has been wrongly denied a competent court-appointed attorney.
- Nullification once served a genuinely valuable historical purpose but has since been rendered wholly unnecessary by the rise of modern appellate review.
- Nullification should be retained yet strictly confined to the rare cases involving statutes that elected representatives have themselves already repealed.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Reading Comprehension practice
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward true cri
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward urban mi
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward the pres
- Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the primary purpose of the second par
- Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the primary function of the second pa