[loaph]

Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law.

Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.

[dragonwriter]

> Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.

Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".

[GabrielTFS]

This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment.

I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering).

The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.

[dllthomas]

How did whether juries are punished become germane? I thought the question at issue was just consistency vs capriciousness of the courts taken as a whole.

[loaph]

This was my intended meaning, thank you!

I wanted to point out that juries can make arbitrary decisions, nullification being a kind of example of this.