the jurors to continue deliberating and to listen carefully to each other and to be deferential toward each other’s views. Continued failure to arrive at a verdict results in a HUNG JURY, which necessitates a new trial with a different jury. In criminal trials in most jurisdictions, the jury’s job ends with the delivery of a verdict of guilt or innocence on every count pertaining to the case, and the judge determines sentencing. In civil cases, juries generally determine the amount of a damages award. Jurors sometimes exercise their right to protest against a law that they consider unfair or unjust by voting “not guilty” even though the defendant is guilty of violating that law. This practice is called JURY NULLIFICATION and it goes back to colonial times. An example of jury nullification would be when a juror who believes that marijuana should be legalized votes “not guilty” in a case in which the defendant is accused of growing marijuana. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), founded in 1989, provides information about jury nullifica- tion to prospective jurors who might not know that it exists as an option. FURTHER READINGS Amar, Akhil Reed. 1995. “Reinventing Juries: Ten Suggested Reforms.” Univ. of California at Davis Law Review 28 (summer). Available online at http://www.law.yale.edu/ documents/pdf/1995Reinventing.pdf; website home page: http://www.law.yale.edu (accessed August 4, 2009). Conrad, Clay S., 1999. Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. Leach, Brian E. 1994. “Extending Batson v. Kentucky to Gender and Beyond: The Death Knell for the Perem- ptory Challenge?” Southern Illinois Univ. Law Journal 19. Minnesota State Court Administration, Office of Research and Planning. 1993. Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System: Final Report. St. Paul. Available online at http://www.mncourts.gov/ documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/Race_ Bias_Report_Complete.pdf; website home page: http://www.mncourts.gov (accessed August 4, 2009). Minnesota State Court Administration, Office of Research and Planning. Implementation Committee on Multicul- tural Diversity and Fairness in the Courts. 1994. Progress Report. St. Paul. Minnesota State Court Administration, Office of Research and Planning. Implementation Committee on Multicul- tural Diversity and Fairness in the Courts. 1995. Progress Report. St. Paul. Montoya, Jean. 1996. “The Future of the Post-Batson Peremptory Challenge: Voir Dire by Questionnaire and the ‘Blind’ Peremptory.” Univ. of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 29. Sklansky, Joseph J. 1996. “Right to Jury Trial.” Georgetown Law Journal 84 (April). CROSS REFERENCES Due Process of Law; Grand Jury. JURY COMMISSION A group of officials charged with the responsibility of choosing the names of prospective jury members or of selecting the list of jurors for a particular term in court. The provisions governing these officers vary greatly from one state to another. In certain states, they are elected, and in others, they are appointed by the governor or by judges. Com- missioners may be regarded as officers of the state or county or of the court which they serve. In choosing the names to compose the jury list, the commissioners have the power to decide those who are fit to serve as jurors or whether particular individuals possess the qualifications set forth by the statut es. The list, however, must be selected without discrimination from all those qualified to serve as jurors. JURY NULLIFICATION A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact. The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the “triers of fact, ” while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. JURY NULLIFICATION occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a VERDICT. The most widely accepted understanding of jury nullification by the courts is one that acknowledges the power but not the right of a juror or jury to nullify the law. Jury nullification is most often, although rarely, exercised in criminal trials but technically is applicable to civil trials as well, where it is subject to civil procedural remedies such as the JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT. In criminal cases, however, the FIFTH AMEND- MENT to the U.S. Constitution makes final a jury trial that results in an acquittal, and it guarantees freedom from DOUBLE JEOPARDY. This gives juries an inherent power to follow their own con- sciences in reaching a verdict, notwithstanding jury instructions or charges to the contrary. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 98 JURY COMMISSION History and Development Jury nullification is not new; in fact, proponents wanting to justify its contemporary application do so by referring to early U.S. history when American colonists struggled to fashion a legal system that would be applicable to them. Prior to U.S. independence, the ENGLISH LAW of SEDITIOUS LIBEL carried grave consequences for colonists who spoke out against British rule of the colonies. In 1735, defense counsel for John Peter Zenger, at Zenger’s trial for seditious libel, contended that: [Juries] have the right beyond all dispute to determine both the law and the facts, and where they do not doubt of the law, they ought to do so. This of leaving it to the judgment of the Court whether the words are libelous or not in effect renders juries useless (to say no worse) in many cases. The jury acquitted Zenger, and every subsequent colonial jurisdiction that confronted the issue of the jury’s right to decide both the law and the facts also came to the conclusion that jurors could decide matters of law. How- ever, this conclusion must be put into historical perspective. First, in pre-revolutionary days, colonists lived under what they deemed an undemocratic, tyrannical government. The jury became a shield, where colonists could be judged by members of their own communities, and it was considered their only means for demo- cratic expression. Second, the entire premise of democracy, in both pre- and post-independence days, demanded popular control of all facets of government. There was also a practical side to granting juries such unyielding control of trials: early co lonial judges were essentially laymen selected from among their peers, and they often knew no more law than did the jurors. However, once the United States established itself and a new republican form of government was developed, the will of the peop le became expressed through popular election of repre- sentatives and the enactment of their own laws. As nullification of the law would constitute a frustration of the popular will, the issue became essentially moot. Jury nullification was no longer considered necessary or desirable in a democratic society. Concomitantly, the role of judges as those who decided issues of law became enmeshed with traditional trial procedure. Not until more than 100 years later did the U.S. Supreme Court have to address the issue. In the case of Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S. Ct. 273, 39 L. Ed. 343 (1895), it unequivocally determined that, in the federal system at least, there was no right to jury nullification. The opinion noted, [Juries] have the physical power to disregard the law, as laid down to them by the court. But I deny that…they have the moral right to decide the law according to their own notions or pleasure. On the contrary, I hold it the most sacred constitutional right of every party accused of a crime that the jury should respond as to the facts, and the court as to the law…This is the right of every citizen, and it is his only protection. In subsequent years, jurors tended to invoke nullification to address either unpopular laws or overzealous application of them. Historic examples include the Alien and Seditions Acts, the Fugitive Slave Acts, and PROHIBITION. During the era of the VIETNAM WAR, the issue resurfaced in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 113 (D.C. Cir. 1972). In that case, DEFENDANT members of the Catholic clergy had ransacked the offices of the Dow Chemical Company to protest the manufacturing of napalm. At trial, defense counsel requested that members of the jury be instructed on their power to nullify the law. The trial court refused, and the court of appeals upheld the decision. Sporadic subsequent cases, presenting variations on the theme, have similarly underscored the high court’s historic ruling. Notwithstanding a judiciary that denied jurors the right to nullify, over the years, jurors have continued to use their power to do so. The power is most often wielded when jurors believe that an acquittal is justified for reasons that the law does not officially recognize. Examples include controversial social issues such as motorcycle helmet laws, ABORTION and right-to-life issues, medicinal use of marijuana, and EUTHANASIA. In 1997 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a juror’sintenttonullify the law was JUST CAUSE for dismissal from the jury. The case of United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) involved an African- American juror’s dismissal from the criminal jury trial of five African Americans on drug charges. However, the narrow opinion also reversed the convictions of the five defendants and remanded the matter for a new trial. Although the court ruled that a juror’s refusal to apply the relevant law was just cause for dismissal, only unambiguous evidence of the juror’s deliberate disregard of the law (not apparent in this case) would justify such a dismissal. In so hol ding, the appellate court GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION JURY NULLIFICATION 99 acknowledged the necessity for secrecy in jury deliberations. Similarly in 1999, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s contempt conviction of juror Laura Kriho. People v. Kriho, 996 P.2d. 158 (Colo. App. [1999]). Several of Kriho’s fellow jurors testified that during delib- erations, she suggested to them that drug cases should be handled in the community rather than by a criminal justice system, and then advised them of their right to nullify. Although the trial court cited Kriho’s alleged misleading of the court about her attitudes toward drug use during voir dire examination, the appellate court found that the Kriho case was, in fact, about jury nullification. It reversed her conviction on grounds that the court should not have consid- ered evidence from jury-room deliberations. The end result of these cases reaffirms that juries have the power to render unreviewable general verdicts of acquittal, making it nearly impossible to definitely prove that nullification occurred. Legislative Efforts Starting in the early 1990s, a new wave of grass- roots promoters again brought the issue to the forefront, attempting this time to focus on legislation rather than on CASE LAW. Several states—including Arizona, Louisiana, Massachu- setts, Tennessee, and Washington—were unsuc- cessful in efforts either to introduce or to pass legislation or constitutional amendments that would require judges to instruct jurors of their right to nullify the law. And in 2002, South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected a pro- posed CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to institution- alize jury nullification. FURTHER READINGS Conrad, Clay S., 1999. Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic. ———. “Jury Nullification: Jurors Flex Their Muscles.” USA Today Magazine (November 1, 1999). Available online at http://www.articlearchives.com/law-legal- system/trial-procedure-jury-trial/1656174-1.html; website home page: http://www.articlearchives.com (accessed August 4, 2009). Creagan, M. Christine. 1993. “Jury Nullification: Assessing Recent Legislative Development.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 43. “Criminal Law—Jury Nullification—Second Circuit Holds That Juror’s Intent to Nullify Is Just Cause.” 1998. Harvard Law Review 111. Frees, Karen. 2000. “Case Law and Jury Nullification.” For the Record. Available online at http://www.clr.org (accessed August 4, 2009). Pepper, David A. 2000. “Nullifying History: Modern-Day Misuse of the Right to Decide the Law.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 50. CROSS REFERENCE Jury. JUS [Latin, right; justice; law; the whole body of law; also a right.] The term is used in two meanings: Jus means law, considered in the abstract; that is, as distinguished from any specific enactment, which we call, in a general sense, the law. Or it means the law taken as a system, an aggregate, a whole. Or it may designate some one particular system or body of particular laws; as in the phrases jus civile, jus gentium, jus proetorium. In a second sense, jus signifies a right; that is, a power, privilege, faculty, or demand inherent in one person and incident upon another; or a capacity residing in one person of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of another. This is its meaning in the expressions jus in rem, jus accrescendi, jus possessionis. JUS COGENS That body of peremptory principles or norms from which no derogation is permitted; those norms recognized by the international community as a whole as being fundamental to the maintenance of an international legal order. Elementary rules that concern the safeguarding of peace and notably those that prohibit recourse to force or the threat of force. Norms of a humanitarian nature are included, such as prohibitions against genocide, slavery, and racial discrimination. Jus cogens may, therefore, operate to invali- date a treaty or agreement between states to the extent of the inconsistency with any such principles or norms. JUS TERTII The right of a third party. A tenant or bailee or another in possession of property, who pleads that the title is in some person other than that person’s landlord or bailor, is said to set up a jus tertii. JUST Legally right; conformity with that which is lawful or fair. Just cause for an action, for example, is a reason for a course of action that is based upon GOOD FAITH. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 100 JUS JUST CAUSE A reasonable and lawful ground for action. Appearing in statutes, contracts, and court decisions, the term JUST CAUSE refers to a standard of reasonableness used to evaluate a person’s actions in a given set of circumstances. If a person acts with just cause, her or his actions are based on reasonable grounds and committed in GOOD FAITH. Whether just cause exists must be determined by the courts through an evaluation of the facts in each case. For example, in Dubois v. Gentry, 182 Tenn. 103, 184 S.W. 2d 369 (1945), the Supreme Court of Tennessee faced the question of whether a PLAINTIFF who leased a filling station had acted with just cause in terminating a lease contract. The DEFENDANT station owner argued that the plaintiff had no right under the terms of the lease to terminate it. The court found that the plaintiff had just cause to terminate the lease because the effort supporting WORLD WAR II had created an employee shortage and wartime rationing had placed restrictions on gasoline and automobile parts, making it unprofitable to operate the station. The term just cause frequently appears in EMPLOYMENT LAW. Employment disputes often involve the issue of whether an employee’sactions constituted just cause for discipline or termina- tion. If the employer was required to have just cause for its action and punished the worker without just cause, a court may order the employer to compensate the worker. Labor unions typically negotiate for a contract provision stating that an employee cannot be fired absent just cause. Since the 1980s a just cause standard has developed for employees not protected by an employment or a union contract. This standard is an alternative to the traditional employment-at- will doctrine. Under the latter, which has been in place since the late 1800s, employees who do not have an employment contract may be terminated at the will of the employer for any reason, or for no reason. Under the new just cause standard, many jurisdictions now hold an employer to its word where the employer has stated it will not fire employees without just cause. FURTHER READINGS Bloch, Richard I., George H. Cohen, and Framroze M. Virjee. 2000. “The Changing Face of Just Cause: One Standard or Many?” Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the National Academy of Arbitrators. Delmendo, Wendi J. 1991. “Determining Just Cause: An Equitable Solution for the Workplace.” Washington Law Review 66 (July). Riley, K. Jack, Nancy Rodriquez, Greg Ridgeway, and Dionne Barnes-Proby. 2005. Just Cause or Just Because? Santa Barbara, CA: RAND. JUST COMPENSATION Equitable remuneration to the owner of private property that is expropriated for public use through condemnation, the implementation of the governmental power of eminent domain. The FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitu- tion proscribes the taking of private property by the government for public use without JUST COMPENSATION . No precise formula exists by which the elements of just compensation can be calculated. Ordinarily, the amount should be based upon the los s to the owner, as opposed to the gain by the taker. The owner should be fairly and fully indemnified for the damage that he or she has sustained. The owner has a right to recover the monetary equivalent of the property taken and is entitled to be put in as good a financial position as he or she would have been in if the property had not been taken. Generally, the measure of damages for property condemned through EMINENT DOMAIN is its fair market value, since the sentimental value to the owner is not an element for consideration. Market value, however, is not an absolute method of valuation but rather a practical standard to aid the courts in their determination of just compensation based upon co nstitutional requirements. When just compensation is assessed, all elements that can appropriately enter into the question of value are regarded. For example, the original cost of the property taken, added to the cost of reproduction or replacement, minus depreciation, can be considered when the market value of property is determined. JUST DESSERTS A retributive theory of criminal punishment that proposes reduced judicial discretion in sentencing and specific sentences for criminal acts without regard to the individual defendant. JUST WAR As widely used, a term referring to any war between states that meets generally accepted international criteria of justification. The concept of just war relies on political, moral, and theological tenants, as it promotes a peaceful resolution and coexistence between states, and the use of force or the invocation of armed conflict only under certain circumstances. It is not the same as, but is often GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION JUST WAR 101 confused with, the term jihad or “holy war,” a Muslim religious justification for war. The principle of a JUST WAR emerged early in the development of scholarly writings on INTERNATIONAL LAW. Under this view, a just war was a means of national self-help w hereby a state attempted to enforce rights actually or allegedly based on international law. State practice from the eighteenth to the early part of the twentieth century generally rejected this distinction, however, as war became a frequent- ly chosen means of altering the existing rights and boundaries of states, irrespective of the actual merits of the controversy. Following WORLD WAR I, diplomatic negotia- tions resulted in the General Treaty for the RENUNCIATION OF WAR, more commonly known as the KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT, signed in 1928. The signatory nations renounced war as a means to resolve international disputes, promising in- stead to use peaceful methods. The aims of the Kellogg-Briand Pact were adopted in the Charter of the UNITED NATIONS in 1945. Under the charter, the use or threat of force as an instrument of national policy was condemned, but nations were permitted to use force in individual or collective SELF-DEFENSE against an aggressor. The General Assembly of the United Nations has further defined aggres- sion as armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state, regardless of the reasons for the use of force. The Security Council is empowered to review the use of force and, therefore, to determine whether the rele- vant circumstances justify branding one nation as the aggressor and in violation of charter obligations. Under the modern view, a just war is one waged consistent with the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Charter of the United Nations. What has complicated the concept of just war in contemporary international relations is the emergence of “asymmetrical warfare.” The term refers to conflict with parties or entities (such as international terrorist groups) who are neither officially connected with, nor owe allegiance to, any particular public authority or state. While these individuals or groups may be dependent upon clandestine assistance from states willing to help them secretly, they are not publicly responsible to them. Because contem- plation of just war requires public authorities to act in their official capacities for the common good, that objective is frustrated by the lack of a discernible, clearly identifiable enemy state against which to act. As a result, the international community is divided over what constitutes legitimate grounds for a traditional state actor to attack an international terrorist group inside the sovereign territory of another country. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of almost 3,000 people in New York City, Washin gton, D.C., and rural Pennsylvania, near Shanksville. According to U.S. intelligence, the attacks were carried out by a group of 19 Islamist terrorists with links to the al-Qaeda network. The United States responded to the attacks by declaring a WAR ON TERRORISM. During the first phase of this war, the United States invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban government, which was believed to have been harboring the terrorists while they planned the SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS and providing sanctuary to the terrorists after the attacks. Known as Operation Enduring Freedom, the American-led in vasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban from powe r. However, the Taliban has regrouped, regained strength, and reclaimed some territory, while U.S. forces remain in Afghanistan under NATO leadership as of 2009. The second phase of the War on TERRORISM began on March 20, 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. U.S. intelligence indicated that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a history of supporting international terrorist organizations and that he had stockpiled WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) in large quantities. The intelligence also indicate d that Hussein had used WMD (mostly biological and chemical agents) ag ainst Iran during the Iran- Iraq war and against Iraqi Kurds in Northern Iraq. According to U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was to disarm Iraq of WMD and thus prevent terrorist groups like al-Qaeda from acquiring them. Within three weeks after the invasion, the Iraqi military had collapsed, and Hussein had been removed from power. However, an insurgency and sectarian violence soon flared up and made the continued presence of U.S. military forces necessary. As of 2009 the U.S. military contin- ued to maintain a presence in Iraq, with more than 4,000 U.S. service men and women having died in Iraq during the six-year conflict. Dating back to the early Catholic theologians who first wrote about just-war theory, there was GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 102 JUST WAR only one kind of just war: a war in self-defense to resist aggression by another nation. Principles established in the NUREMBERG TRIALS of the Nazi war criminals following WORLD WAR II, and later adopted by the United Nations, declared that it is a “crime against peace” to start or wage “awar against the territorial integrity, political indepen- dence, or sovereignty of a state.” The United Nations charter also outlaws wars of aggression and specifically sanctions wars waged in self- defense. Under this line of thought, then, both of the U.S initiated wars in Afghanistan and Iraq might be described as unjust wars because technically speaking neither the Taliban govern- ment in Afghanistan nor the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq had attacked the United States prior to the commencement of hostilities. Yet for many people around the world, the war in Afghanistan has always been considered the “good war,” while the war in Iraq has long been considered the “bad war.” The war in Afghanistan was considered the “good war” for several reasons. First, the available evidence indicated that the Taliban government was in fact harboring al- Qaeda terrorists, who were believed to have carried out the attacks of September 11. Second, more than 40 nations expressly provided military, logistical, or other support for the war in Afghanistan, lending strength in numbers to the moral underpinnings of the war. Third, the war resulted in the replacement of a harsh despotic regime governing Afghanistan with a regime that was democratically elected. The war, then, was not fought for territorial aggrandizement on the part of the invading coalition. Fourth, execution of the war was not marred by widespread and notorious misconduct of the invading coalition forces. Finally, evidence gathered following the invasion supported the original premise for the invasion, namely that the Taliban had developed cozy relations with al-Qaeda and had been allowing the terrorist network to use Afghanistan as a safe haven from which to launch their attacks. Evaluating the U.S led war in Iraq under just-war principles is much more complicated. There are two perspe ctives. One perspective holds that the Iraq invasion must be evaluated based on the information available on the date of the invasion. The other perspective holds that the Iraq invasion must be evaluated in light of not only the information available before military operations began, but in light of all the informa- tion that has become available since then. On the date of the invasion, U.S. intelligence knew that following the 1991 Gulf War, the U.N. Security Council had passed Resolution 687, which required Iraq to destroy all of its chemical, nuclear, and biological WEAPONS. Over the next ten years, the U.N. compiled a series of reports showing that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with that resolution. On November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council, in a 15-0 vote, passed Resolution 1441, which found Iraq to be in “material breach” of Resolution 687, and warned of “serious consequences” if Iraq did not fulfill its obligations to disclose and dismantle its WMD. In January of 2003, U.N weapon s inspector Hans Blix reported that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government still had not come to a “genuine acceptance” of its obligations under Resolutions 687 or 1441. Specifically, Blix reported that Iraq had failed to account for 350 metric tons of bulk chemical warfare agents (including nerve gas), 2,700 metric tons of precursor chemicals, 300 metric tons of VX (the most toxic nerve gas), 25,000 liters of anthrax spores, and 30,000 special munitions, which Iraq admitted possessing in 1999. Based on this information, the United States a nd a coalition of approximately ten other countries decided that the only way to compel Iraq to disclose and dismantle its WMD was by force via a military invasion. Russia, China, and France led a group of more than ten countries that voiced opposition to the invasion. These count ries favored giving diplomatic efforts a greater opportunity to succeed in fulfilling the objectives expressed in Resolutions 687 and 1441. Opposition to the Iraq invasion grew as military operations unfolded. No WMD were ever discovered, thus undermining the original purpose for the invasion. The United States and its coalition partners were unable to bring security to Iraq after toppling its government. Instead, the country was overtaken by sectarian violence and an insurgency that left more than one million Iraqis dead, homeless, or displaced in other countries. Widely reported harsh treat- ment of prisoners of war and detainees held by U.S. and coalition forces within Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at secret prisons in other countries throughout the world further soiled the moral underpinnings of the war. In light of this information, many believe the Iraq invasion was unjust. Indeed, prosecutors in GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION JUST WAR 103 Spain are considering indicting certain Bush White House officials for violating the RULES OF WAR in planning and carrying out the invasion. The military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate the difficulties of applying just-war principles in the new millennium. Not only can WMD bring death to tens of thousands of people, technology enables them to be delivered by conventional means during formal military operations or by unconventional means via a surreptitious terrorist attack on a civilian population. Waiting to defend one’s country against a war of aggression waged by a state actor or terrorist organization can thus have deadly consequences. At the same time, acting preemptively to eliminate a threat before it fully materializes carries its own perils, including incurring the wrath of other countries in the community of nations and placing your own soldiers at risk in foreign military campaigns. FURTHER READINGS Falvey, Joseph L., Jr. “Reflections on Just Wars and Just Warriors.” Journal of Catholic Legal Studies. 47. Johnson, James Turner. 2002. “Jihad and Just War.” First Things 124. Novak, Michael. 2003. “Asymmetrical Warfare & Just War.” National Review online. Text of public lecture given on February 10, 2003, in Rome. Available online at www. nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp (accessed August 13, 2003). Schwartz, Daniel. 2008. “Just War Doctrine and Nuclear Weapons: A Case Study of a Proposed Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities from an American and Israeli Perspec- tive.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal Fall. CROSS REFERENCES Rules of War; War Crimes. JUSTICE The proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. A title given to certain judges, such as federal and state supreme court judges. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the executive branch department responsible for handling the legal work of the federal government. Head- quartered in Washington, D.C., the DOJ is the largest legal organization in the United States, with more than 100,000 employees nationwide and a budget of approximately $30 billion. The DOJ comprises many administrative units whose responsibilities involve either representing the United States’ interests in court or enforcing federal laws. Many of the depart- ment’s activities involve traditional legal and investigative functions, such as filing suits on behalf of the United States or apprehending criminals. Other department functions are ad- ministrative. For example, the Office of Policy Development is devoted to long-term policy planning. Department Leadership At the top of the department is the attorney general, who is appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. A key member of the president’s cabinet, the attorney general supervises the many divisions, bureaus, and offices of the DOJ. Unlike other cabinet members, however, the attorney general also functions as a practicing attorney, serving as the president’s legal adviser. Below the attorney general are the deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, and the SOLICITOR GENERAL. Although the deputy attorney general is officially the second-highest position at the DOJ, the office of associate attorney general, created in 1977, is often considered to be equally powerful. The deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general divide the department’s administrative responsibilities between them, providing direc- tion to the or ganizational units in the depart- ment. They also advise the attorney general on policy matters. The solicitor general is primarily responsible for supervising and conducting government litigation before the federal appel- late courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Department Structure The DOJ is composed of several different units, including divisions, bureaus, and offices. The government’s legal business is handled by the department’s six litigating divisions: Antitrust, Civil, CIVIL RIGHTS, Criminal, Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax. Each of these divisions is headed by an assistant attorney general. These divisions handle cases involving the United States that have a broad legal impact. Nationwide, the government is represented by 93 U.S. attorneys, who conduct all federal court cases and some federal investigations in their districts. Each state has at least one U.S. attorney, and some of the larger states are divided into districts that each have a U.S. attorney. The U.S. attorneys handle the majority GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 104 JUSTICE of cases in which the federal government is a party. Although the U.S. attorneys report to the DOJ, they traditionally operate with a fair amount of independence and autonomy. Each U.S. attorney is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a four-year term. The several bureaus within the DOJ are concerned with various aspects of law enforce- ment. The U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE (USMS) is the country’s oldest law enforcement agency, hav- ing begun as a group of 13 marshals appointed by GEORGE WASHINGTON; in the early 2000s, the USMS has 94 marshals and is primarily respon- sible for providing court security, transporting prisoners, apprehending fugitives, protecting witnesses, and executing federal court orders. The FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) is the government’s major investigatory agency and the largest unit within the DOJ; the FBI pursues information concerning federal violations, col- lects evidence in cases involving the United States, and performs other duties assigned by law or by the president. The DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA) combats drug trafficking, investigating major drug dealers, helping to prepare cases against them, and helping foreign governments pursue drug dealers. Also under the DOJ’s umbrella are the Bureau of Prisons Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Solicitor General Associate Attorney General Office of the Solicitor General Office of Justice Programs Executive Office for United States Trustees Office on Violence Against Women Community Oriented Policing Services Office of Information Policy Office of Dispute Resolution Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Civil Rights Division Antitrust Division Tax Division Civil Division Environment and Natural Resources Division Community Relations Service Office of Legal Policy Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Inter- Governmental and Public Liaison Office of Public Affairs Office of Legal Counsel Federal Bureau of Investigation Executive Office for United States Attorneys United States Attorneys Criminal Division Bureau of Prisons United States Marshals Service U.S. National Central Bureau Interpol Office of the Federal Detention Trustee National Security Division Justice Management Division Executive Office for Immigration Review Professional Responsibility Advisory Office Office of Professional Responsibility Office of the Pardon Attorney United States Parole Commission National Drug Intelligence Center Drug Enforcement Administration Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives Office of the Inspector General ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 105 (BOP), which oversees the federal prison system, and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which administers crime prevention and deterrence programs. The DOJ also houses several offices that provide administrative support functions. These include the Office of Legislative Affairs, which coordinates the DOJ’s relationship with Con- gress; the Office of Legal Counsel, which helps the attorney general to furnish legal advice to the president; the U.S. Parole Commission, which administers the parole system for federal prison- ers; the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, which administers the handling of BANKRUPTCY cases; and the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which handles cases against foreign govern- ments for losses sustained by U.S. citizens. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is another important component of the DOJ. The bureau, which was established in 1979, is responsible for the collection and analysis of criminal justice statistics at the state and federal levels. It issues annual reports on criminal victimization, popu- lations under correctional supervision, and federal criminal offenders and case processing. It also issues periodic reports on the adminis- tration of law enforcement agencies and correc- tional facilities, prosecutorial practices and polices, state court case processing, FELONY convictions, characteristics of correctional populations, criminal justice expenditure and employment, and civil case processing in state courts. History of the Department The position of attorney general has its roots in medieval ENGLISH LAW. The title attorney general can be traced to 1398, when the Duke of Norfolk employed attorneys general to witness his banishment. In the years following, the king or queen and other nobles employed attorneys to appear in court on their behalf. In time, the office of the king’s or queen’s attorney became a privileged and powerful position. The attorney general, as the position was called after 1461, became an important political and legal adviser, first to the monarch and later to the House of Commons and the government in general. When English settlers established colonies in North America, they included the office of attorney general in the colonial governments they created. Virginia was the first colony to appoint an atto rney general, in 1643, followed by Rhode Island in 1650, and Maryland in 1660. By the end of the seventeenth century, most of the colonies had their own attorneys general. By 1776, a fairly consistent system of courts and law officers had been established in the colonies. With the American Revolution, British office- holders were simply replaced with Americans. When the Constitution was written in 1789, the Framers did not specifically designate an office of attorney general, instead leaving such administrative details to be determined by statute. The attorney general was created by the JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, which specified that the office should be filled by “a meet person, learned in the law,” who would “prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and … give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , or when requested by the heads of any of the departments.” The act gave the attorney general limited powers and resources, including no provisions for staffing or office expenses. The person filling the office was expected to pay for such items. Because the position of attorney general was originally meant to be a part-time position, the salary was set at just $1,500 per year, and the officeholder was expected to maintain a private legal practice. The first person to fill the position of attorney general was EDMUND RANDOLPH,of Virginia, who was George Washington’sper- sonal attorney. Although the attorney general initially was not a member of the president’s cabinet, Washington valued Randolph’s advice so much that he asked Randolph to sit in on his cabinet meetings. Ever since then, the position of the attorney general has been recognized as a cabinet post. In addition to the office of attorney general, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the U.S. district attorneys (now called U.S. attorneys) and the U.S. marshals, who represented the federal government in court and enforced federal laws, respectively, at the state and local levels. Although these officials were statutorily under the supervision of the president, they actually operated with very few checks. To make the government’s legal w ork more controllable and co nsistent, Attorney General Randolph attempted to bring the U.S. attorneys and marshals under his supervision, arguing that GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 106 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT such centralization would help him to secure the government’s legal interests. However, the legislation that Randolph recommended failed in Congress. This division of the government’s legal work—among the attorney general, the district attorneys and marshals, and also solicitors hired by individual executive departments—resulted in uncoordinated, inconsistent, and inefficient legal service to the federal government. Pre- sidents and attorneys general made several attempts to centralize the government’s legal services, but Congress was leery of giving the executive branch more power and therefore did not pass the necessary legislation. In the early nineteenth century, the office of the attorney general expanded slowly. The workload was light, and until 1814 the attorney general was not required to reside in Washing- ton, D.C., except when the U.S. Supreme Court was in session. Significant changes were made, however, when WILLIAM WIRT, attorney general under President JAMES MONROE, took over the office in 1817. Finding that previous attorneys general had kept no records of their work, Wirt established a formal system for recording his official actions and decisions so that future attorneys general would have a record of precedents to follow. Wirt also expanded the duties of the office and created formal operating procedures, greatly increasing his workload. Congress compensated Wirt for his efforts, increasing his salary to $3,500 and providing a clerk and office expenses. These funds, however, were one-time appropriations only; not until 1831 did Congress begin making regular appro- priations for office expenses and book purchases. The next attorney general to make signifi- cant changes in the office was CALEB CUSHING, who was appointed attorney general by Presi- dent FRANKLIN PIERCE in 1853. Unlike his predecessors, Cushing left his own private legal practice and transformed the office of attorney general into a full-time position. Cushing expanded the work performed by the depart- ment and was also given additional responsibil- ities by Congress, including advising treaty commissioners, examining government land titles, administering government patents, and compiling and publishing federal laws. To enable Cushing to complete this work, Congress in 1859 authoriz ed the appointment of an assistant attorney general, who was given control of the U.S. district attorneys. Congress also raised the attorney general’s salary to $6,000, finally making it equal to the salaries of other cabinet members. With the onset of the Civil War, the govern- ment’s need for legal services and representation increased drastically. All across the country, claimants were filing suits in cases involving issues such as property titles and personal rights. The attorney general’s office did not have the resources to handle these cases, nor did it have adequate authority over the district attorneys in the states. The various executive departments were forced to hire outside counsel to represent the government, resulting in enormous costs—nearly $500,000 over four years. These totals came to the attention of Congress, which was trying to curb expenses in the aftermath of the war. To try to economize on the government’s legal bills, Congress passed the Judicial Act of 1870, which created the DOJ. The staff was increased by two assistants and a solicitor general, who was to share the attorney general’s task of representing the federal government before the U.S. Supreme Court. The act also gave the attorney general positive authority over the U.S. district attorneys and marshals. Although the creation of the DOJ did not materially change the duties of the attorney general, it significantly changed the nature of the job by making it an administrative position that is responsible for an official bureaucracy. Even with the creation of the DOJ, the federal government’s legal work suffered from a lack of coordination because individual execu- tive departments continued to retain their own solicitors. These solicitors provided legal advice to their departments and claimed the right to represent the departments in court. The con- flicts and confusion that were created between the departments and the DOJ came to a head during WORLD WAR I, when many new federal government agencies and departments were created, each claiming the right to conduct its own legal work. In response, President WOODROW WILSON issued an executive order (Exec. Order No. 2877 [1918]) requiring all government law offi cers to operate under the supervision of the DOJ. By the 1920 s, administrative chaos returned as individual departments again tried to conduct their own legal work. In 1933, President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT issued another executive order (Exec. Order No. 6166 [1933]) consolidating all the government’s legal work under the DOJ and the attorney general. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 107 . Natural Resources Division Community Relations Service Office of Legal Policy Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Inter- Governmental and Public Liaison Office of Public Affairs Office of Legal Counsel Federal Bureau of Investigation Executive Office. evidence of the juror’s deliberate disregard of the law (not apparent in this case) would justify such a dismissal. In so hol ding, the appellate court GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION JURY. another executive order (Exec. Order No. 61 66 [1933]) consolidating all the government’s legal work under the DOJ and the attorney general. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION JUSTICE DEPARTMENT