Which term describes jurors acquitting a defendant despite evidence of guilt because they believe the law is unjust?

• A. Peel's Nine Principles
• B. Jury Nullification
• C. Mutual Pledge
• D. Shire-Reeve

Answer: (B)

Juror nullification describes the situation where a jury acquits a defendant even when guilt is supported by the evidence, because the jurors believe applying the law would be unjust or unfair in that case. It rests on the jury’s power to determine whether the law should be applied as written in a particular verdict, reflecting a moral or practical objection to the statute rather than a belief that the defendant is innocent of all facts. This can serve as a check on laws that seem overly harsh or misapplied, but it’s controversial because it bypasses standard legal standards and can lead to inconsistent outcomes.

The other terms refer to entirely different aspects of the justice system: Peel's Nine Principles are guidelines for policing and the relationship between police and the public; Mutual Pledge is a historical community-based safety and obligation system; and the Shire-Reeve is an old English official akin to a sheriff.