美国陪审团越来越多地拒绝他们认为不公正的判决,引发关于法律与良心的辩论。 U.S. juries increasingly reject verdicts they deem unjust, sparking debate over law versus conscience.

越来越多的美国陪审员拒绝他们认为不公正的判决,即使法律要求他们遵守法律,这凸显了司法系统中日益受政治和社会压力影响的紧张局势。 A growing number of U.S. jurors are rejecting verdicts they view as unjust, even when legally required to follow the law, highlighting tensions in a justice system increasingly influenced by political and social pressures. 最近的案件表明陪审团拒绝在引人注目的审判中定罪,以道德或道德关切为由,引发了关于法律义务与个人良心之间平衡的辩论。 Recent cases have shown juries refusing to convict in high-profile trials, citing moral or ethical concerns, sparking debate over the balance between legal obligation and individual conscience. 法律专家警告这类行动可能会破坏法治,而倡导者则认为陪审团仍然是对系统性不平等的重要检查。 Legal experts warn such actions could undermine the rule of law, while advocates argue juries remain a vital check on systemic inequities. 这一趋势反映出公众对于在日益两极分化的情况下实现司法公正持有更广泛的怀疑态度。 The trend reflects broader public skepticism toward judicial fairness amid rising polarization.