Lately I've been seeing a lot of unsettling things in the Judiciary. My state is reeling from two judges that sentenced thousands of children to hard time in exchange for cash. We are in the middle of another scandal that involved at least one DA overlooking children being sexually assaulted. As far as I see it, it's partly because there's not a very good corrective measure to hold them accountable. The few measures in place are not exactly good ideas, such as mandatory sentencing.
I notice the judges and prosecutors tend to get a bit uh, "rabidly foaming at the mouth" at the mere mention of jury nullification. I was under the impression that jurors were supposed to decide guilt or innocence. I also thought judges couldn't tamper with "not guilty" votes, but coudl with "guilty" votes. But I've heard incidents of both being ignored.
Here's my thoughts on the matter: The cops can lie to you. You cannot lie to the cops. DA and cops are basically a unified team. Both have significantly more resources than the average person. They have massive legal advantages as well. Public defenders are historically under funded/staffed, and often are more supportive of the DA than their clients. Even if you win a case, you still must pay ruinous legal fees and are not automatically entitled to getting your property back if it is seized.
It is not humanly possible to know the law, yet you are bound to follow laws that you cannot possibly understand with or without legal training. We have a handful of lawyers and a judge here. I guarantee that they do not know international weapons trafficking law as well as I do. I did that every day, non-stop, for a year and a half. I read the relevant laws, multiple times, read hundreds of regulatory decisions, etc. I didn't understand a fraction of the situation. After talking to the HEAD ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS at the relevant government agencies, I learned THEY didn't either. They certainly knew it better than me. But there were HUGE grey areas that no one had any idea what the law meant in reality, and it was SOLELY down to the skill/resources of the lawyer for the defendant or prosecution to determine whether an action was legal or not. For the same general activity, some folks walked, others got huge fines.
I am not a foaming at the mouth activist. This is just from direct observation of how things are. It greatly varies, township by township, county by county. I look very closely at the legal systems of a place before I live there. But those above issues are generally universal.
If I was a judge, DA or cop, I'd be mildly supportive of jury nullification as a necessary pressure valve. The legal system is not advantageous to the average guy or gal to a large extent, and relies on the personal integrity of judges/DA/cops not to be abusive of their advantages. I have no idea if that's good, bad or neither. But if any one of those three significantly overstep their position (even staying within the law), it will lead to public perception issues that would be more impacting than letting the odd person off when the law possibly says otherwise. Piss the people off enough, and there will be a massive overcorrection. It's what always happens. Some group pushes the people too far, and they go too far in "fixing" the problem.