Which is better: legal discretion or automatic enforcement?

[exploited]

I rest my case.

[Southern Dad]

I'm a proponent of mandatory enforcement. Cite or arrest everyone that violates the law. Then it can be up to the judge or jury (depending on whether a bench or jury trial is selected) to determine guilt or innocence and appropriate sentence. Here in the USA we have something called Jury Nullification. That is where the jury believes that someone did indeed violate the law but shouldn't be found guilty for it, therefore they return a "not guilty" verdict. This is not legally sanctioned, nor is it offered to the jurors but the jurors are in fact not just trying based upon the letter of the law. Basically, they are saying that either yes, the defendant is guilty but we disagree with the law or yes, the defendant is guilty but shouldn't be convicted in this case.

In Canada, jury nullification exists but the prosecutor can appeal an acquittal.

[eynon81]

[exploited]

[Southern Dad]

[Saz]

[exploited]

[Saz]

[exploited]

[Saz]